Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

This retrospective observational study investigates skin cancer prevalence and care patterns within the Military Health System (MHS) from 2017 to 2022. Utilizing the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), we analyzed more than 5 million patient encounters and documented skin cancer prevalence in the MHS beneficiary population utilizing available demographic data. Notable findings included an increased prevalence of skin cancer in the military population compared with the civilian population, a substantial decline in direct care (DC) visits at military treatment facilities compared with civilian purchased care (PC) visits, and a decreased total number of visits during COVID-19 restrictions.

The Military Health System (MHS) is a worldwide health care delivery system that serves 9.6 million beneficiaries, including military service members, retirees, and their families.¹ Its mission is 2-fold: provide a medically ready force, and provide a medical benefit in keeping with the service and sacrifice of active-duty personnel, military retirees, and their families. For fiscal year (FY) 2022, active-duty service members and their families comprised 16.7% and 19.9% of beneficiaries, respectively, while retired service members and their families comprised 27% and 32% of beneficiaries, respectively.

The MHS operates under the authority of the Department of Defense (DoD) and is supported by an annual budget of approximately $50 billion.¹ Health care provision within the MHS is managed by TRICARE regional networks.² Within these networks, MHS beneficiaries may receive health care in 2 categories: direct care (DC) and purchased care (PC). Direct care is rendered in military treatment facilities by military or civilian providers contracted by the DoD, and PC is administered by civilian providers at civilian health care facilities within the TRICARE network, which is comprised of individual providers, clinics, and hospitals that have agreed to accept TRICARE beneficiaries.¹ Purchased care is fee-for-service and paid for by the MHS. Of note, the MHS differs from the Veterans Affairs health care system in that the MHS through DC and PC sees only active-duty service members, active-duty dependents, retirees, and retirees’ dependents (primarily spouses), whereas Veterans Affairs sees only veterans (not necessarily retirees) discharged from military service with compensable medical conditions or disabilities.

Skin cancer presents a notable concern for the US Military, as the risk for skin cancer is thought to be higher than in the general population.^3,4 This elevated risk is attributed to numerous factors inherent to active-duty service, including time spent in tropical environments, increased exposure to UV radiation, time spent at high altitudes, and decreased rates of sun-protective behaviors.³ Although numerous studies have explored the mechanisms that contribute to service members’ increased skin cancer risk, there are few (if any) that discuss the burden of skin cancer on the MHS and where its beneficiaries receive their skin cancer care. This study evaluated the burden of skin cancer within the MHS, as demonstrated by the period prevalence of skin cancer among its beneficiaries and the number and distribution of patient visits for skin cancer across both DC and PC from 2017 to 2022.

Methods

Data Collection—This retrospective observational study was designed to describe trends in outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis and annual prevalence of skin cancer types in the MHS. Data are from all MHS beneficiaries who were eligible or enrolled in the analysis year. Our data source was the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), a query tool that contains the current and most recent 5 full FYs of Defense Health Agency corporate health care data including aggregated FY and calendar-year counts of MHS beneficiaries from 2017 to 2022 using encounter and claims data tables from both DC and PC. Data in M2 are coded using a pseudo-person identification number, and queries performed for this study were limited to de-identified visit and patient counts.

Skin cancer diagnoses were defined by relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes recorded from outpatient visits in DC and PC. The M2 database was queried to find aggregate counts of visits and unique MHS beneficiaries with one or more diagnoses of a skin cancer type of interest (defined by relevant ICD-10-CM code) over the study period stratified by year and by patient demographic characteristics. Skin cancer types by ICD-10-CM code group included basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), malignant melanoma (MM), and other (including Merkel cell carcinoma and sebaceous carcinoma). Demographic strata included age, sex, military status (active duty, dependents of active duty, retired, or all others), sponsor military rank, and sponsor branch (army, air force, marine corps, or navy). Visit counts included diagnoses from any ICD position (for encounters that contained multiple ICD codes) to describe the total volume of care that addressed a diagnosed skin cancer. Counts of unique patients in prevalence analyses included relevant diagnoses in the primary ICD position only to increase the specificity of prevalence estimates.

Data Analysis—Descriptive analyses included the total number of outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis in DC and PC over the study period, with percentages of total visits by year and by demographic strata. Separate analyses estimated annual prevalences of skin cancer types in the MHS by study year and within 2022 by demographic strata. Numerators in prevalence analyses were defined as the number of unique individuals with one or more relevant ICD codes in the analysis year. Denominators were defined as the total number of MHS beneficiaries in the analysis year and resulting period prevalences reported. Observed prevalences were qualitatively described, and trends were compared with prevalences in nonmilitary populations reported in the literature.

Ethics—This study was conducted as part of a study using secondary analyses of de-identified data from the M2 database. The study was reviewed and approved by the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center institutional review board.

Results

Encounter data were analyzed from a total of 5,374,348 visits between DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest. Figures 1 and 2 show temporal trends in DC visits compared with PC visits in each beneficiary category. The percentage of total DC visits subsequently declined each year throughout the study period, with percentage decreases from 2017 to 2022 of 1.45% or 8200 fewer visits for MM, 3.41% or 7280 fewer visits for BCC, and 2.26% or 3673 fewer visits for SCC.

When stratified by beneficiary category, this trend remained consistent among dependents and retirees, with the most notable annual percentage decrease from 2019 to 2020. A higher proportion of younger adults and active-duty beneficiaries was seen in DC relative to PC, in which most visits were among retirees and others (primarily dependents of retirees, survivors, and Guard/Reserve on active duty, as well as inactive Guard/Reserve). No linear trends over time were apparent for active duty in DC and for dependents and retirees in PC. eTable 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of MHS beneficiaries being seen in DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest.

The Table shows the period prevalence of skin cancer diagnoses within the MHS beneficiary population from 2017 to 2022. These data were further analyzed by MM, BCC, and SCC (eTable 2) and demographics of interest for the year 2022. By beneficiary category, the period prevalence of MM was 0.08% in active duty, 0.06% in dependents, 0.48% in others, and 1.10% in retirees; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.12% in active duty, 0.07% in dependents, 0.91% in others, and 2.50% in retirees; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.02% in active duty, 0.01% in dependents, 0.63% in others, and 1.87% in retirees. By sponsor branch, the period prevalence of MM was 0.35% in the army, 0.62% in the air force, 0.35% in the marine corps, and 0.65% in the navy; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.74% in the army, 1.30% in the air force, 0.74% in the marine corps, and 1.36% in the navy; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.52% in the army, 0.92% in the air force, 0.51% in the marine corps, and 0.97% in the navy.

Comment

This study aimed to provide insight into the burden of skin cancer within the MHS beneficiary population and to identify temporal trends in where these beneficiaries receive their care. We examined patient encounter data from more than 9.6 million MHS beneficiaries.

The utilization of ICD codes from patient encounters to estimate the prevalence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) has demonstrated a high positive predictive value. In one study, NMSC cases were confirmed in 96.5% of ICD code–identified patients.⁵ We presented an extensive collection of epidemiologic data on BCC and SCC, which posed unique challenges for tracking, as they are not reported to or monitored by cancer registries such as the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.⁶

MHS Compared to the US Population—A study using the Global Burden of Disease 2019 database revealed an increasing trend in the incidence and prevalence of NMSC and melanoma since 1990. The same study found the period prevalence in 2019 of MM, SCC, and BCC in the general US population to be 0.13%, 0.31%, and 0.05%, respectively.⁷ In contrast, among MHS beneficiaries, we observed a higher prevalence in the same year, with figures of 0.66% for MM, 0.72% for SCC, and 1.02% for BCC. According to the SEER database, the period prevalence of MM within the general US population in 2020 was 0.4%.⁸ That same year, we identified a higher period prevalence of MM—0.54%—within the MHS beneficiary population. Specifically, within the MHS retiree population, the prevalence in 2022 was double that of the general MHS population, with a rate of 1.10%, underscoring the importance of skin cancer screening in older, at-risk adult populations. Prior studies similarly found increased rates of skin cancer within the military beneficiary population. Further studies are needed to compare age-adjusted rates in the MHS vs US population.^9-11

COVID-19 Trends—Our data showed an overall decreasing prevalence of skin cancer in the MHS from 2019 to 2021. We suspect that the apparent decrease in skin cancer prevalence may be attributed to underdiagnosis from COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. During that time, many dermatology clinics at military treatment facilities underwent temporary closures, and some dermatologists were sent on nondermatologic utilization tours. Likewise, a US multi-institutional study described declining rates of new melanomas from 2020 to 2021, with an increased proportion of patient presentations with advanced melanoma, suggesting an underdiagnosis of melanoma cases during pandemic restrictions. That study also noted an increased rate of patient-identified melanomas and a decreased rate of provider-identified melanomas during that time.¹² Contributing factors may include excess hospital demand, increased patient complexity and acute care needs, and long outpatient clinic backlogs during this time.¹³Financial Burden—Over our 5-year study period, there were 5,374,348 patient encounters addressing skin cancer, both in DC and PC (Figures 1 and 2; eTable 1). In 2016 to 2018, the average annual cost of treating skin cancer in the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population was $1243 for NMSC (BCC and SCC) and $2430 for melanoma.⁶ Using this metric, the estimated total cost of care rendered in the MHS in 2018 for NMSC and melanoma was $202,510,803 and $156,516,300, respectively.

Trends in DC vs PC—In the years examined, we found a notable decrease in the number of beneficiaries receiving treatment for MM, BCC, and SCC in DC. Simultaneously, there has been an increase in the number of beneficiaries receiving PC for BCC and SCC, though this trend was not apparent for MM.

Our data provided interesting insights into the percentage of PC compared with DC offered within the MHS. Importantly, our findings suggested that the majority of skin cancer in active-duty service members is managed with DC within the military treatment facility setting (61% DC management over the period analyzed). This finding was true across all years of data analyzed, suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic did not result in a quantifiable shift in care of skin cancer within the active-duty component to outside providers. One of the critical roles of dermatologists in the MHS is to diagnose and treat skin cancer, and our study suggested that the current global manning and staffing for MHS dermatologists may not be sufficient to meet the burden of skin cancers encountered within our active-duty troops, as only 61% are managed with DC. In particular, service members in more austere and/or overseas locations may not have ready access to a dermatologist.

The burden of skin cancer shifts dramatically when analyzing care of all other populations included in these data, including dependents of active-duty service members, retirees, and the category of “other” (ie, principally dependents of retirees). Within these populations, the rate of DC falls to 30%, with 70% of active-duty dependent care being deferred to network. The findings are even more noticeable for retirees and others within these 2 cohorts in all types of skin cancer analyzed, where DC only accounted for 5.2% of those skin cancers encountered and managed across TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries. For MM, BCC, and SCC, percentages of DC were 5.4%, 5.8%, and 3.5%, respectively. Although it is interesting to note the lower percentage of SCC managed via DC, our data did not allow for extrapolation as to why more SCC cases may be deferred to network. The shift to PC may align with DoD initiatives to increase the private sector’s involvement in military medicine and transition to civilianizing the MHS.¹⁴ In the end, the findings are remarkable, with approximately 95% of skin cancer care and management provided overall via PC.

These findings differ from previously published data regarding DC and PC from other specialty areas. Results from an analysis of DC vs PC for plastic surgery for the entire MHS from 2016 to 2019 found 83.2% of cases were deferred to network.¹⁵ A similar publication in the orthopedics literature examined TRICARE claims for patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasties between 2006 and 2019 and found 84.6% of cases were referred for PC. Notably, the authors utilized generalized linear models for cost analysis and found that DC was more expensive than PC, though this likely was a result of higher rates of hospital readmission within DC cases.¹⁶ Lastly, an article on the DC vs PC disposition of MHS patients with breast cancer from 2003 to 2008 found 46% of cases managed with DC vs 26.% with PC and 27.8% receiving a combination. In this case, the authors found a reduced cost associated with DC vs PC.¹⁷

Little additional literature exists regarding the costs of DC vs PC. An article published in 2016 designed to assess costs of DC vs PC showed that almost all military treatment facilities have higher costs than their private sector counterparts, with a few exceptions.¹⁸ This does not assess the costs of specific procedures, however, and only the overall cost to maintain a treatment facility. Importantly, this study was based on data from FY 2014 and has not been updated to reflect complex changes within the MHS system and the private health care system. Indeed, a US Government Accountability Office FY 2023 study highlighted staffing and efficiency issues within this transition to civilian medicine; subsequently, the 2024 President’s Budget suspended all planned clinical medical military end strength divestitures, underscoring the potential ineffectiveness of a civilianized MHS at meeting the health care needs of its beneficiaries.^19,20 Future research on a national scale will be necessary to see if there is a reversal of this trend to PC and if doing so has any impact on access to DC for active-duty troops or active-duty dependents.

In addition to PC vs DC trends, we also can get a sense of the impact of the COVID pandemic restrictions on access to DC vs PC by assessing the change in rates seen in the data from the pre-COVID years (2017-2019) to the “post-COVID” years (2020-2022) included. Overall, rates of DC decreased uniformly from their already low percentages. In our study, rates of DC decreased from 5.8% in 2019 to 4.8% in 2022 for MM, from 6.6% to 4.3% for BCC, and from 4.2% to 2.9% for SCC. Although these changes seem small at first, they represent a 30.6% overall decrease in DC for BCC and an overall decrease of 55.4% in DC for SCC. Although our data do not allow us to extrapolate the real cost of this reduction across a nationwide health care system and more than 5 million care encounters, the financial and personal (ie, lost man-hours) costs of this decrease in DC likely are substantial.

In addition to costs, qualitative aspects that contribute to the burden of skin cancer include treatment-related morbidity, such as scarring, pain, and time spent away from family, work, and hobbies, as well as overall patient satisfaction with the quality of care they receive.²¹ Future work is critical to assess the real cost of this immense burden of PC for the treatment and management of skin cancers within the DoD beneficiary population.

Limitations—This study is limited by its observational nature. Given the mechanism of our data collection, we may have underestimated disease prevalence, as not all patients are seen for their diagnosis annually. Furthermore, reported demographic strata (eg, age, sex) were limited to those available and valid in the M2 reporting system. Finally, our study only collected data from those service members or former service members seen within the MHS and does not reflect any care rendered to those who are no longer active duty but did not officially retire from the military (ie, nonretired service members receiving care in the Veterans Affairs system for skin cancer).

Conclusion

We describe the annual burden of care for skin cancer in the MHS beneficiary population. Noteworthy findings observed were an overall decrease in beneficiaries being treated for skin cancer through DC; a decreasing annual prevalence of skin cancer diagnosis between 2019 and 2021, which may represent underdiagnosis or decreased follow-up in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic; and a higher rate of skin cancer in the military beneficiary population compared to the civilian population.

This retrospective observational study investigates skin cancer prevalence and care patterns within the Military Health System (MHS) from 2017 to 2022. Utilizing the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), we analyzed more than 5 million patient encounters and documented skin cancer prevalence in the MHS beneficiary population utilizing available demographic data. Notable findings included an increased prevalence of skin cancer in the military population compared with the civilian population, a substantial decline in direct care (DC) visits at military treatment facilities compared with civilian purchased care (PC) visits, and a decreased total number of visits during COVID-19 restrictions.

The Military Health System (MHS) is a worldwide health care delivery system that serves 9.6 million beneficiaries, including military service members, retirees, and their families.¹ Its mission is 2-fold: provide a medically ready force, and provide a medical benefit in keeping with the service and sacrifice of active-duty personnel, military retirees, and their families. For fiscal year (FY) 2022, active-duty service members and their families comprised 16.7% and 19.9% of beneficiaries, respectively, while retired service members and their families comprised 27% and 32% of beneficiaries, respectively.

The MHS operates under the authority of the Department of Defense (DoD) and is supported by an annual budget of approximately $50 billion.¹ Health care provision within the MHS is managed by TRICARE regional networks.² Within these networks, MHS beneficiaries may receive health care in 2 categories: direct care (DC) and purchased care (PC). Direct care is rendered in military treatment facilities by military or civilian providers contracted by the DoD, and PC is administered by civilian providers at civilian health care facilities within the TRICARE network, which is comprised of individual providers, clinics, and hospitals that have agreed to accept TRICARE beneficiaries.¹ Purchased care is fee-for-service and paid for by the MHS. Of note, the MHS differs from the Veterans Affairs health care system in that the MHS through DC and PC sees only active-duty service members, active-duty dependents, retirees, and retirees’ dependents (primarily spouses), whereas Veterans Affairs sees only veterans (not necessarily retirees) discharged from military service with compensable medical conditions or disabilities.

Skin cancer presents a notable concern for the US Military, as the risk for skin cancer is thought to be higher than in the general population.^3,4 This elevated risk is attributed to numerous factors inherent to active-duty service, including time spent in tropical environments, increased exposure to UV radiation, time spent at high altitudes, and decreased rates of sun-protective behaviors.³ Although numerous studies have explored the mechanisms that contribute to service members’ increased skin cancer risk, there are few (if any) that discuss the burden of skin cancer on the MHS and where its beneficiaries receive their skin cancer care. This study evaluated the burden of skin cancer within the MHS, as demonstrated by the period prevalence of skin cancer among its beneficiaries and the number and distribution of patient visits for skin cancer across both DC and PC from 2017 to 2022.

Methods

Data Collection—This retrospective observational study was designed to describe trends in outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis and annual prevalence of skin cancer types in the MHS. Data are from all MHS beneficiaries who were eligible or enrolled in the analysis year. Our data source was the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), a query tool that contains the current and most recent 5 full FYs of Defense Health Agency corporate health care data including aggregated FY and calendar-year counts of MHS beneficiaries from 2017 to 2022 using encounter and claims data tables from both DC and PC. Data in M2 are coded using a pseudo-person identification number, and queries performed for this study were limited to de-identified visit and patient counts.

Skin cancer diagnoses were defined by relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes recorded from outpatient visits in DC and PC. The M2 database was queried to find aggregate counts of visits and unique MHS beneficiaries with one or more diagnoses of a skin cancer type of interest (defined by relevant ICD-10-CM code) over the study period stratified by year and by patient demographic characteristics. Skin cancer types by ICD-10-CM code group included basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), malignant melanoma (MM), and other (including Merkel cell carcinoma and sebaceous carcinoma). Demographic strata included age, sex, military status (active duty, dependents of active duty, retired, or all others), sponsor military rank, and sponsor branch (army, air force, marine corps, or navy). Visit counts included diagnoses from any ICD position (for encounters that contained multiple ICD codes) to describe the total volume of care that addressed a diagnosed skin cancer. Counts of unique patients in prevalence analyses included relevant diagnoses in the primary ICD position only to increase the specificity of prevalence estimates.

Data Analysis—Descriptive analyses included the total number of outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis in DC and PC over the study period, with percentages of total visits by year and by demographic strata. Separate analyses estimated annual prevalences of skin cancer types in the MHS by study year and within 2022 by demographic strata. Numerators in prevalence analyses were defined as the number of unique individuals with one or more relevant ICD codes in the analysis year. Denominators were defined as the total number of MHS beneficiaries in the analysis year and resulting period prevalences reported. Observed prevalences were qualitatively described, and trends were compared with prevalences in nonmilitary populations reported in the literature.

Ethics—This study was conducted as part of a study using secondary analyses of de-identified data from the M2 database. The study was reviewed and approved by the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center institutional review board.

Results

Encounter data were analyzed from a total of 5,374,348 visits between DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest. Figures 1 and 2 show temporal trends in DC visits compared with PC visits in each beneficiary category. The percentage of total DC visits subsequently declined each year throughout the study period, with percentage decreases from 2017 to 2022 of 1.45% or 8200 fewer visits for MM, 3.41% or 7280 fewer visits for BCC, and 2.26% or 3673 fewer visits for SCC.

When stratified by beneficiary category, this trend remained consistent among dependents and retirees, with the most notable annual percentage decrease from 2019 to 2020. A higher proportion of younger adults and active-duty beneficiaries was seen in DC relative to PC, in which most visits were among retirees and others (primarily dependents of retirees, survivors, and Guard/Reserve on active duty, as well as inactive Guard/Reserve). No linear trends over time were apparent for active duty in DC and for dependents and retirees in PC. eTable 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of MHS beneficiaries being seen in DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest.

The Table shows the period prevalence of skin cancer diagnoses within the MHS beneficiary population from 2017 to 2022. These data were further analyzed by MM, BCC, and SCC (eTable 2) and demographics of interest for the year 2022. By beneficiary category, the period prevalence of MM was 0.08% in active duty, 0.06% in dependents, 0.48% in others, and 1.10% in retirees; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.12% in active duty, 0.07% in dependents, 0.91% in others, and 2.50% in retirees; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.02% in active duty, 0.01% in dependents, 0.63% in others, and 1.87% in retirees. By sponsor branch, the period prevalence of MM was 0.35% in the army, 0.62% in the air force, 0.35% in the marine corps, and 0.65% in the navy; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.74% in the army, 1.30% in the air force, 0.74% in the marine corps, and 1.36% in the navy; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.52% in the army, 0.92% in the air force, 0.51% in the marine corps, and 0.97% in the navy.

Comment

This study aimed to provide insight into the burden of skin cancer within the MHS beneficiary population and to identify temporal trends in where these beneficiaries receive their care. We examined patient encounter data from more than 9.6 million MHS beneficiaries.

The utilization of ICD codes from patient encounters to estimate the prevalence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) has demonstrated a high positive predictive value. In one study, NMSC cases were confirmed in 96.5% of ICD code–identified patients.⁵ We presented an extensive collection of epidemiologic data on BCC and SCC, which posed unique challenges for tracking, as they are not reported to or monitored by cancer registries such as the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.⁶

MHS Compared to the US Population—A study using the Global Burden of Disease 2019 database revealed an increasing trend in the incidence and prevalence of NMSC and melanoma since 1990. The same study found the period prevalence in 2019 of MM, SCC, and BCC in the general US population to be 0.13%, 0.31%, and 0.05%, respectively.⁷ In contrast, among MHS beneficiaries, we observed a higher prevalence in the same year, with figures of 0.66% for MM, 0.72% for SCC, and 1.02% for BCC. According to the SEER database, the period prevalence of MM within the general US population in 2020 was 0.4%.⁸ That same year, we identified a higher period prevalence of MM—0.54%—within the MHS beneficiary population. Specifically, within the MHS retiree population, the prevalence in 2022 was double that of the general MHS population, with a rate of 1.10%, underscoring the importance of skin cancer screening in older, at-risk adult populations. Prior studies similarly found increased rates of skin cancer within the military beneficiary population. Further studies are needed to compare age-adjusted rates in the MHS vs US population.^9-11

COVID-19 Trends—Our data showed an overall decreasing prevalence of skin cancer in the MHS from 2019 to 2021. We suspect that the apparent decrease in skin cancer prevalence may be attributed to underdiagnosis from COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. During that time, many dermatology clinics at military treatment facilities underwent temporary closures, and some dermatologists were sent on nondermatologic utilization tours. Likewise, a US multi-institutional study described declining rates of new melanomas from 2020 to 2021, with an increased proportion of patient presentations with advanced melanoma, suggesting an underdiagnosis of melanoma cases during pandemic restrictions. That study also noted an increased rate of patient-identified melanomas and a decreased rate of provider-identified melanomas during that time.¹² Contributing factors may include excess hospital demand, increased patient complexity and acute care needs, and long outpatient clinic backlogs during this time.¹³Financial Burden—Over our 5-year study period, there were 5,374,348 patient encounters addressing skin cancer, both in DC and PC (Figures 1 and 2; eTable 1). In 2016 to 2018, the average annual cost of treating skin cancer in the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population was $1243 for NMSC (BCC and SCC) and $2430 for melanoma.⁶ Using this metric, the estimated total cost of care rendered in the MHS in 2018 for NMSC and melanoma was $202,510,803 and $156,516,300, respectively.

Trends in DC vs PC—In the years examined, we found a notable decrease in the number of beneficiaries receiving treatment for MM, BCC, and SCC in DC. Simultaneously, there has been an increase in the number of beneficiaries receiving PC for BCC and SCC, though this trend was not apparent for MM.

Our data provided interesting insights into the percentage of PC compared with DC offered within the MHS. Importantly, our findings suggested that the majority of skin cancer in active-duty service members is managed with DC within the military treatment facility setting (61% DC management over the period analyzed). This finding was true across all years of data analyzed, suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic did not result in a quantifiable shift in care of skin cancer within the active-duty component to outside providers. One of the critical roles of dermatologists in the MHS is to diagnose and treat skin cancer, and our study suggested that the current global manning and staffing for MHS dermatologists may not be sufficient to meet the burden of skin cancers encountered within our active-duty troops, as only 61% are managed with DC. In particular, service members in more austere and/or overseas locations may not have ready access to a dermatologist.

The burden of skin cancer shifts dramatically when analyzing care of all other populations included in these data, including dependents of active-duty service members, retirees, and the category of “other” (ie, principally dependents of retirees). Within these populations, the rate of DC falls to 30%, with 70% of active-duty dependent care being deferred to network. The findings are even more noticeable for retirees and others within these 2 cohorts in all types of skin cancer analyzed, where DC only accounted for 5.2% of those skin cancers encountered and managed across TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries. For MM, BCC, and SCC, percentages of DC were 5.4%, 5.8%, and 3.5%, respectively. Although it is interesting to note the lower percentage of SCC managed via DC, our data did not allow for extrapolation as to why more SCC cases may be deferred to network. The shift to PC may align with DoD initiatives to increase the private sector’s involvement in military medicine and transition to civilianizing the MHS.¹⁴ In the end, the findings are remarkable, with approximately 95% of skin cancer care and management provided overall via PC.

These findings differ from previously published data regarding DC and PC from other specialty areas. Results from an analysis of DC vs PC for plastic surgery for the entire MHS from 2016 to 2019 found 83.2% of cases were deferred to network.¹⁵ A similar publication in the orthopedics literature examined TRICARE claims for patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasties between 2006 and 2019 and found 84.6% of cases were referred for PC. Notably, the authors utilized generalized linear models for cost analysis and found that DC was more expensive than PC, though this likely was a result of higher rates of hospital readmission within DC cases.¹⁶ Lastly, an article on the DC vs PC disposition of MHS patients with breast cancer from 2003 to 2008 found 46% of cases managed with DC vs 26.% with PC and 27.8% receiving a combination. In this case, the authors found a reduced cost associated with DC vs PC.¹⁷

Little additional literature exists regarding the costs of DC vs PC. An article published in 2016 designed to assess costs of DC vs PC showed that almost all military treatment facilities have higher costs than their private sector counterparts, with a few exceptions.¹⁸ This does not assess the costs of specific procedures, however, and only the overall cost to maintain a treatment facility. Importantly, this study was based on data from FY 2014 and has not been updated to reflect complex changes within the MHS system and the private health care system. Indeed, a US Government Accountability Office FY 2023 study highlighted staffing and efficiency issues within this transition to civilian medicine; subsequently, the 2024 President’s Budget suspended all planned clinical medical military end strength divestitures, underscoring the potential ineffectiveness of a civilianized MHS at meeting the health care needs of its beneficiaries.^19,20 Future research on a national scale will be necessary to see if there is a reversal of this trend to PC and if doing so has any impact on access to DC for active-duty troops or active-duty dependents.

In addition to PC vs DC trends, we also can get a sense of the impact of the COVID pandemic restrictions on access to DC vs PC by assessing the change in rates seen in the data from the pre-COVID years (2017-2019) to the “post-COVID” years (2020-2022) included. Overall, rates of DC decreased uniformly from their already low percentages. In our study, rates of DC decreased from 5.8% in 2019 to 4.8% in 2022 for MM, from 6.6% to 4.3% for BCC, and from 4.2% to 2.9% for SCC. Although these changes seem small at first, they represent a 30.6% overall decrease in DC for BCC and an overall decrease of 55.4% in DC for SCC. Although our data do not allow us to extrapolate the real cost of this reduction across a nationwide health care system and more than 5 million care encounters, the financial and personal (ie, lost man-hours) costs of this decrease in DC likely are substantial.

In addition to costs, qualitative aspects that contribute to the burden of skin cancer include treatment-related morbidity, such as scarring, pain, and time spent away from family, work, and hobbies, as well as overall patient satisfaction with the quality of care they receive.²¹ Future work is critical to assess the real cost of this immense burden of PC for the treatment and management of skin cancers within the DoD beneficiary population.

Limitations—This study is limited by its observational nature. Given the mechanism of our data collection, we may have underestimated disease prevalence, as not all patients are seen for their diagnosis annually. Furthermore, reported demographic strata (eg, age, sex) were limited to those available and valid in the M2 reporting system. Finally, our study only collected data from those service members or former service members seen within the MHS and does not reflect any care rendered to those who are no longer active duty but did not officially retire from the military (ie, nonretired service members receiving care in the Veterans Affairs system for skin cancer).

Conclusion

We describe the annual burden of care for skin cancer in the MHS beneficiary population. Noteworthy findings observed were an overall decrease in beneficiaries being treated for skin cancer through DC; a decreasing annual prevalence of skin cancer diagnosis between 2019 and 2021, which may represent underdiagnosis or decreased follow-up in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic; and a higher rate of skin cancer in the military beneficiary population compared to the civilian population.

This retrospective observational study investigates skin cancer prevalence and care patterns within the Military Health System (MHS) from 2017 to 2022. Utilizing the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), we analyzed more than 5 million patient encounters and documented skin cancer prevalence in the MHS beneficiary population utilizing available demographic data. Notable findings included an increased prevalence of skin cancer in the military population compared with the civilian population, a substantial decline in direct care (DC) visits at military treatment facilities compared with civilian purchased care (PC) visits, and a decreased total number of visits during COVID-19 restrictions.

The Military Health System (MHS) is a worldwide health care delivery system that serves 9.6 million beneficiaries, including military service members, retirees, and their families.¹ Its mission is 2-fold: provide a medically ready force, and provide a medical benefit in keeping with the service and sacrifice of active-duty personnel, military retirees, and their families. For fiscal year (FY) 2022, active-duty service members and their families comprised 16.7% and 19.9% of beneficiaries, respectively, while retired service members and their families comprised 27% and 32% of beneficiaries, respectively.

The MHS operates under the authority of the Department of Defense (DoD) and is supported by an annual budget of approximately $50 billion.¹ Health care provision within the MHS is managed by TRICARE regional networks.² Within these networks, MHS beneficiaries may receive health care in 2 categories: direct care (DC) and purchased care (PC). Direct care is rendered in military treatment facilities by military or civilian providers contracted by the DoD, and PC is administered by civilian providers at civilian health care facilities within the TRICARE network, which is comprised of individual providers, clinics, and hospitals that have agreed to accept TRICARE beneficiaries.¹ Purchased care is fee-for-service and paid for by the MHS. Of note, the MHS differs from the Veterans Affairs health care system in that the MHS through DC and PC sees only active-duty service members, active-duty dependents, retirees, and retirees’ dependents (primarily spouses), whereas Veterans Affairs sees only veterans (not necessarily retirees) discharged from military service with compensable medical conditions or disabilities.

Skin cancer presents a notable concern for the US Military, as the risk for skin cancer is thought to be higher than in the general population.^3,4 This elevated risk is attributed to numerous factors inherent to active-duty service, including time spent in tropical environments, increased exposure to UV radiation, time spent at high altitudes, and decreased rates of sun-protective behaviors.³ Although numerous studies have explored the mechanisms that contribute to service members’ increased skin cancer risk, there are few (if any) that discuss the burden of skin cancer on the MHS and where its beneficiaries receive their skin cancer care. This study evaluated the burden of skin cancer within the MHS, as demonstrated by the period prevalence of skin cancer among its beneficiaries and the number and distribution of patient visits for skin cancer across both DC and PC from 2017 to 2022.

Methods

Data Collection—This retrospective observational study was designed to describe trends in outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis and annual prevalence of skin cancer types in the MHS. Data are from all MHS beneficiaries who were eligible or enrolled in the analysis year. Our data source was the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), a query tool that contains the current and most recent 5 full FYs of Defense Health Agency corporate health care data including aggregated FY and calendar-year counts of MHS beneficiaries from 2017 to 2022 using encounter and claims data tables from both DC and PC. Data in M2 are coded using a pseudo-person identification number, and queries performed for this study were limited to de-identified visit and patient counts.

Skin cancer diagnoses were defined by relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes recorded from outpatient visits in DC and PC. The M2 database was queried to find aggregate counts of visits and unique MHS beneficiaries with one or more diagnoses of a skin cancer type of interest (defined by relevant ICD-10-CM code) over the study period stratified by year and by patient demographic characteristics. Skin cancer types by ICD-10-CM code group included basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), malignant melanoma (MM), and other (including Merkel cell carcinoma and sebaceous carcinoma). Demographic strata included age, sex, military status (active duty, dependents of active duty, retired, or all others), sponsor military rank, and sponsor branch (army, air force, marine corps, or navy). Visit counts included diagnoses from any ICD position (for encounters that contained multiple ICD codes) to describe the total volume of care that addressed a diagnosed skin cancer. Counts of unique patients in prevalence analyses included relevant diagnoses in the primary ICD position only to increase the specificity of prevalence estimates.

Data Analysis—Descriptive analyses included the total number of outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis in DC and PC over the study period, with percentages of total visits by year and by demographic strata. Separate analyses estimated annual prevalences of skin cancer types in the MHS by study year and within 2022 by demographic strata. Numerators in prevalence analyses were defined as the number of unique individuals with one or more relevant ICD codes in the analysis year. Denominators were defined as the total number of MHS beneficiaries in the analysis year and resulting period prevalences reported. Observed prevalences were qualitatively described, and trends were compared with prevalences in nonmilitary populations reported in the literature.

Ethics—This study was conducted as part of a study using secondary analyses of de-identified data from the M2 database. The study was reviewed and approved by the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center institutional review board.

Results

Encounter data were analyzed from a total of 5,374,348 visits between DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest. Figures 1 and 2 show temporal trends in DC visits compared with PC visits in each beneficiary category. The percentage of total DC visits subsequently declined each year throughout the study period, with percentage decreases from 2017 to 2022 of 1.45% or 8200 fewer visits for MM, 3.41% or 7280 fewer visits for BCC, and 2.26% or 3673 fewer visits for SCC.

When stratified by beneficiary category, this trend remained consistent among dependents and retirees, with the most notable annual percentage decrease from 2019 to 2020. A higher proportion of younger adults and active-duty beneficiaries was seen in DC relative to PC, in which most visits were among retirees and others (primarily dependents of retirees, survivors, and Guard/Reserve on active duty, as well as inactive Guard/Reserve). No linear trends over time were apparent for active duty in DC and for dependents and retirees in PC. eTable 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of MHS beneficiaries being seen in DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest.

The Table shows the period prevalence of skin cancer diagnoses within the MHS beneficiary population from 2017 to 2022. These data were further analyzed by MM, BCC, and SCC (eTable 2) and demographics of interest for the year 2022. By beneficiary category, the period prevalence of MM was 0.08% in active duty, 0.06% in dependents, 0.48% in others, and 1.10% in retirees; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.12% in active duty, 0.07% in dependents, 0.91% in others, and 2.50% in retirees; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.02% in active duty, 0.01% in dependents, 0.63% in others, and 1.87% in retirees. By sponsor branch, the period prevalence of MM was 0.35% in the army, 0.62% in the air force, 0.35% in the marine corps, and 0.65% in the navy; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.74% in the army, 1.30% in the air force, 0.74% in the marine corps, and 1.36% in the navy; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.52% in the army, 0.92% in the air force, 0.51% in the marine corps, and 0.97% in the navy.

Comment

This study aimed to provide insight into the burden of skin cancer within the MHS beneficiary population and to identify temporal trends in where these beneficiaries receive their care. We examined patient encounter data from more than 9.6 million MHS beneficiaries.

The utilization of ICD codes from patient encounters to estimate the prevalence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) has demonstrated a high positive predictive value. In one study, NMSC cases were confirmed in 96.5% of ICD code–identified patients.⁵ We presented an extensive collection of epidemiologic data on BCC and SCC, which posed unique challenges for tracking, as they are not reported to or monitored by cancer registries such as the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.⁶

MHS Compared to the US Population—A study using the Global Burden of Disease 2019 database revealed an increasing trend in the incidence and prevalence of NMSC and melanoma since 1990. The same study found the period prevalence in 2019 of MM, SCC, and BCC in the general US population to be 0.13%, 0.31%, and 0.05%, respectively.⁷ In contrast, among MHS beneficiaries, we observed a higher prevalence in the same year, with figures of 0.66% for MM, 0.72% for SCC, and 1.02% for BCC. According to the SEER database, the period prevalence of MM within the general US population in 2020 was 0.4%.⁸ That same year, we identified a higher period prevalence of MM—0.54%—within the MHS beneficiary population. Specifically, within the MHS retiree population, the prevalence in 2022 was double that of the general MHS population, with a rate of 1.10%, underscoring the importance of skin cancer screening in older, at-risk adult populations. Prior studies similarly found increased rates of skin cancer within the military beneficiary population. Further studies are needed to compare age-adjusted rates in the MHS vs US population.^9-11

COVID-19 Trends—Our data showed an overall decreasing prevalence of skin cancer in the MHS from 2019 to 2021. We suspect that the apparent decrease in skin cancer prevalence may be attributed to underdiagnosis from COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. During that time, many dermatology clinics at military treatment facilities underwent temporary closures, and some dermatologists were sent on nondermatologic utilization tours. Likewise, a US multi-institutional study described declining rates of new melanomas from 2020 to 2021, with an increased proportion of patient presentations with advanced melanoma, suggesting an underdiagnosis of melanoma cases during pandemic restrictions. That study also noted an increased rate of patient-identified melanomas and a decreased rate of provider-identified melanomas during that time.¹² Contributing factors may include excess hospital demand, increased patient complexity and acute care needs, and long outpatient clinic backlogs during this time.¹³Financial Burden—Over our 5-year study period, there were 5,374,348 patient encounters addressing skin cancer, both in DC and PC (Figures 1 and 2; eTable 1). In 2016 to 2018, the average annual cost of treating skin cancer in the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population was $1243 for NMSC (BCC and SCC) and $2430 for melanoma.⁶ Using this metric, the estimated total cost of care rendered in the MHS in 2018 for NMSC and melanoma was $202,510,803 and $156,516,300, respectively.

Trends in DC vs PC—In the years examined, we found a notable decrease in the number of beneficiaries receiving treatment for MM, BCC, and SCC in DC. Simultaneously, there has been an increase in the number of beneficiaries receiving PC for BCC and SCC, though this trend was not apparent for MM.

Our data provided interesting insights into the percentage of PC compared with DC offered within the MHS. Importantly, our findings suggested that the majority of skin cancer in active-duty service members is managed with DC within the military treatment facility setting (61% DC management over the period analyzed). This finding was true across all years of data analyzed, suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic did not result in a quantifiable shift in care of skin cancer within the active-duty component to outside providers. One of the critical roles of dermatologists in the MHS is to diagnose and treat skin cancer, and our study suggested that the current global manning and staffing for MHS dermatologists may not be sufficient to meet the burden of skin cancers encountered within our active-duty troops, as only 61% are managed with DC. In particular, service members in more austere and/or overseas locations may not have ready access to a dermatologist.

The burden of skin cancer shifts dramatically when analyzing care of all other populations included in these data, including dependents of active-duty service members, retirees, and the category of “other” (ie, principally dependents of retirees). Within these populations, the rate of DC falls to 30%, with 70% of active-duty dependent care being deferred to network. The findings are even more noticeable for retirees and others within these 2 cohorts in all types of skin cancer analyzed, where DC only accounted for 5.2% of those skin cancers encountered and managed across TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries. For MM, BCC, and SCC, percentages of DC were 5.4%, 5.8%, and 3.5%, respectively. Although it is interesting to note the lower percentage of SCC managed via DC, our data did not allow for extrapolation as to why more SCC cases may be deferred to network. The shift to PC may align with DoD initiatives to increase the private sector’s involvement in military medicine and transition to civilianizing the MHS.¹⁴ In the end, the findings are remarkable, with approximately 95% of skin cancer care and management provided overall via PC.

These findings differ from previously published data regarding DC and PC from other specialty areas. Results from an analysis of DC vs PC for plastic surgery for the entire MHS from 2016 to 2019 found 83.2% of cases were deferred to network.¹⁵ A similar publication in the orthopedics literature examined TRICARE claims for patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasties between 2006 and 2019 and found 84.6% of cases were referred for PC. Notably, the authors utilized generalized linear models for cost analysis and found that DC was more expensive than PC, though this likely was a result of higher rates of hospital readmission within DC cases.¹⁶ Lastly, an article on the DC vs PC disposition of MHS patients with breast cancer from 2003 to 2008 found 46% of cases managed with DC vs 26.% with PC and 27.8% receiving a combination. In this case, the authors found a reduced cost associated with DC vs PC.¹⁷

Little additional literature exists regarding the costs of DC vs PC. An article published in 2016 designed to assess costs of DC vs PC showed that almost all military treatment facilities have higher costs than their private sector counterparts, with a few exceptions.¹⁸ This does not assess the costs of specific procedures, however, and only the overall cost to maintain a treatment facility. Importantly, this study was based on data from FY 2014 and has not been updated to reflect complex changes within the MHS system and the private health care system. Indeed, a US Government Accountability Office FY 2023 study highlighted staffing and efficiency issues within this transition to civilian medicine; subsequently, the 2024 President’s Budget suspended all planned clinical medical military end strength divestitures, underscoring the potential ineffectiveness of a civilianized MHS at meeting the health care needs of its beneficiaries.^19,20 Future research on a national scale will be necessary to see if there is a reversal of this trend to PC and if doing so has any impact on access to DC for active-duty troops or active-duty dependents.

In addition to PC vs DC trends, we also can get a sense of the impact of the COVID pandemic restrictions on access to DC vs PC by assessing the change in rates seen in the data from the pre-COVID years (2017-2019) to the “post-COVID” years (2020-2022) included. Overall, rates of DC decreased uniformly from their already low percentages. In our study, rates of DC decreased from 5.8% in 2019 to 4.8% in 2022 for MM, from 6.6% to 4.3% for BCC, and from 4.2% to 2.9% for SCC. Although these changes seem small at first, they represent a 30.6% overall decrease in DC for BCC and an overall decrease of 55.4% in DC for SCC. Although our data do not allow us to extrapolate the real cost of this reduction across a nationwide health care system and more than 5 million care encounters, the financial and personal (ie, lost man-hours) costs of this decrease in DC likely are substantial.

In addition to costs, qualitative aspects that contribute to the burden of skin cancer include treatment-related morbidity, such as scarring, pain, and time spent away from family, work, and hobbies, as well as overall patient satisfaction with the quality of care they receive.²¹ Future work is critical to assess the real cost of this immense burden of PC for the treatment and management of skin cancers within the DoD beneficiary population.

Limitations—This study is limited by its observational nature. Given the mechanism of our data collection, we may have underestimated disease prevalence, as not all patients are seen for their diagnosis annually. Furthermore, reported demographic strata (eg, age, sex) were limited to those available and valid in the M2 reporting system. Finally, our study only collected data from those service members or former service members seen within the MHS and does not reflect any care rendered to those who are no longer active duty but did not officially retire from the military (ie, nonretired service members receiving care in the Veterans Affairs system for skin cancer).

Conclusion

We describe the annual burden of care for skin cancer in the MHS beneficiary population. Noteworthy findings observed were an overall decrease in beneficiaries being treated for skin cancer through DC; a decreasing annual prevalence of skin cancer diagnosis between 2019 and 2021, which may represent underdiagnosis or decreased follow-up in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic; and a higher rate of skin cancer in the military beneficiary population compared to the civilian population.

Angiosarcomas are aggressive endothelial cell tumors of vascular origin that account for 1% to 2% of all soft tissue sarcomas in the United States.^1,2 They can affect any organ in the body but most commonly affect the skin and soft tissue. Cutaneous angiosarcoma (CAS) is a rare type of skin cancer that can present in 2 forms: primary and secondary. The primary form lacks a known underlying cause, but secondary CAS commonly is linked to prior radiation therapy of the breast as well as lymphedema of the breast and arm. Secondary CAS may require different treatment than primary CAS, as radiation therapy poses risks to patients with radiation-induced CAS.³ The prognosis of CAS is poor due to delayed diagnosis. Current treatment modalities have a high rate of local recurrence and/or distant metastasis, but recent advances in surgery and other therapies such as radiation and immunotherapy provide hope for more successful disease control.

Dermatologists may be responsible for the initial diagnosis and management of CAS. They must be familiar with its presentation, as this condition can be difficult to diagnose and mimics other diseases. Additionally, dermatologists must understand the role of varying treatment modalities including Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) in the management of CAS. This review will provide an overview of the epidemiology, presentation, and pathologic features of CAS and will discuss both emerging and existing treatments.

Epidemiology

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may present in various locations in the body, predominantly on the head and neck.^4,5 Approximately 85% of cases arise in patients older than 60 years, and most of these patients are White men.^1,4,5 The risk factors for the development of CAS include prior radiation exposure; chronic lymphedema (ie, Stewart-Treves syndrome); and familial syndromes including neurofibromatosis 1, BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, Maffucci syndrome, and Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome. Exogenous exposure to toxins such as vinyl chloride, thorium dioxide, or anabolic steroids also is associated with angiosarcoma, primarily in the form of visceral disease such as hepatic angiosarcoma.⁶

The average tumor size is approximately 4 to 5 cm; however, some tumors may grow larger than 10 cm.^7,8 Metastasis through hematogenous or lymphatic spread is fairly common, occurring in approximately 16% to 35% of patients. The lungs and liver are the most common sites of metastasis.^9,10 The age-adjusted incidence rate of CAS is decreasing for patients younger than 50 years, from 1.30 in 1995 to 2004 to 1.10 in 2005 to 2014, but increasing for individuals older than 70 years, from 2.53 in 1995 to 2004 to 2.87 in 2005 to 2014.⁴ The incidence of angiosarcoma also has grown in the female population, likely due to the increasing use of radiotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer.¹¹

The high rates of CAS on the head and neck may be explained by the increased vascularity and UV exposure in these locations.¹² In a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population-based study (N=811), 43% of patients with CAS had a history of other malignancies such as breast, prostate, genitourinary, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract cancers.⁴ Cutaneous angiosarcoma can develop secondary to the primary cancer treatment, as seen in patients who develop CAS following radiation therapy.¹¹

The underlying mechanism of CAS is believed to involve dysregulation of angiogenesis due to the vascular origin of these tumors. Studies have identified overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), TP53 mutations, and RAS pathway mutations as potential contributing factors to the pathogenesis of angiosarcoma.⁶ Molecular differences between primary and secondary angiosarcomas are not well documented; however, radiation-associated CAS has been found to have higher expression of LYN and PRKCΘ, while non–radiation-induced lesions express FTL1 and AKT3.² Chromosomal abnormalities have been identified in a small set of primary CAS patients, but the specific role of these abnormalities in the pathogenesis of CAS remains unclear.⁷

Prognosis

Cutaneous angiosarcoma has a poor prognosis, with 3-year disease-specific survival rates as low as 40% and 5-year rates as low as 17%.^4,5,13,14 Survival rates increased from 1985 to 2014, likely due to earlier diagnoses and more effective treatments.⁴ Several factors are associated with worse prognosis, including metastatic disease, increasing age, scalp and neck tumor location, tumor size greater than 5 cm, necrosis, multiple skin lesions, and nodular and epithelioid morphology.^4,5,10,13-16 Factors including sex, race, and presence of another malignancy do not affect survival.^4,5 Prognosis in CAS may be evaluated by TNM tumor staging. The American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition) for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) commonly is used; however, CAS is not included in this staging system because it does not share the same behavior and natural history as other types of STS. This staging system provides separate guidelines for STS of the head and neck and STS of the extremities and trunk because of the smaller size but paradoxically higher risk for head and neck tumors.¹⁷ Given that there is no agreed-upon staging system for CAS, prognosis and communication among providers may be complicated.

Early CAS typically presents as single or multifocal ill-defined, enlarging, violaceous or dusky red macules or patches (Figure 1). Lesions often rapidly develop into raised nodules and plaques that may bleed and ulcerate. Other common symptoms include pain, edema, neuropathy, anemia, and weight loss; however, it is not uncommon for lesions to be asymptomatic.^8,18-20 Nodular lesions are more common on the scalp, and patches are more common on the face and neck.¹⁶ Tumors typically extend into the dermis, and aggressive cancers may invade the subcutaneous tissue and fascia.²

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may mimic ecchymosis, hemangioma, lymphangioma, edema, cellulitis, or scarring alopecia. Its nonspecific features make it difficult to recognize without dermoscopy or ultrasonography, which often results in delayed diagnosis and treatment. The median delay typically is 5 to 7 months and up to 1 year for some patients.^7,16 Cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp tends to have a longer diagnostic delay than other areas of the body, which may be attributable to challenges in tumor identification and visualization by patients.¹⁶

Dermoscopy and ultrasonography can aid in the diagnosis of CAS. Dermoscopy may demonstrate a range of colors with yellow, brown, or red areas in a violaceous background. Other reported features include white veils and lines, purple ovals, pink-purple “steamlike” areas, and atypical vessels (Figure 2).^21-23 Dermoscopic findings may appear similar to other vascular tumors, such as hemangioma and Kaposi sarcoma, or nonvascular tumors, including amelanotic melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. Ultrasonography may show ill-defined, hypoechoic areas with anechoic reticular channels and a hypoechoic subepidermal layer.²¹ Other radiologic modalities, such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography, are nonspecific and are more useful in evaluating the extent of tumor spread in visceral angiosarcoma. Magnetic resonance imaging in CAS may indicate malignancy with the presence of high T2 and T1 signal intensity and high-flow serpentine vessels.²⁴

Histopathology

Histologically, angiosarcoma is characterized by anastomosing irregular vascular channels lined by a single layer of endothelial cells displaying slight to moderate atypia.²⁵ These vascular channels dissect between collagen bundles and adipocytes. Monocyte infiltration may be observed.⁶ The neoplastic endothelial cells may present as spindle-shaped, round, polygonal, or epithelioid with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Histologic features differ based on the type of clinical lesion (Figure 3). In a study of CAS in Asian populations, nodular tumors showed solid sheets of pleomorphic spindle cells, many mitotic figures, and widely hemorrhagic spaces, whereas nonnodular tumors showed irregular vascular spaces dissecting collagen.¹⁶ Poorly differentiated tumors may present with hyperchromatic nuclei and prominent nucleoli, papillary endothelial formations, mitoses, and possible hemorrhage or necrosis.^2,6,8 Histologic specimens also may reveal calcified bodies and hemosiderin particles.¹⁹ Angiosarcomas typically are invasive without a clear capsule or border.⁶

Photograph courtesy of Kim HooKim, MD (Camden, New Jersey).

Secondary CAS in the setting of lymphedema and radiation therapy has MYC amplification and is positive for MYC via immunohistochemistry, which is uncommon in primary angiosarcoma.²⁶ Immunohistochemical staining of tumor specimens is helpful to confirm the diagnosis of CAS. These markers include CD31, CD34, CD117, cytokeratin, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, factor VIII–related antigen, Ulex europaeus agglutinin-1, von Willebrand factor, and VEGF.^6,19,27,28 Notably, advanced angiosarcomas with progressive dedifferentiation often lose these markers.

Treatment

Surgery—The majority of patients treated for CAS undergo surgical resection, as surgery has been shown to have the best prognosis for patients.^5,9,10,13,15 Achieving R0 resection (microscopically negative margins) is the most important factor in determining the success of treatment, with incomplete surgical resection resulting in higher rates of systemic and local spread.²⁹ Abraham et al⁸ found that the median disease-specific survival of patients with microscopically negative margins was 83.7 months; patients with microscopically positive and grossly positive margins had median disease-specific survival of 63.4 and 18.1 months, respectively. In a case series of patients undergoing resection with negative surgical margins, 4 patients demonstrated no evidence of local recurrence or systemic disease at an average of 4.3 years after therapy, and the other 4 patients each had 1 local recurrence but were disease free an average of 4.8 years after removal of the recurrent lesion. In a series of 27 patients with positive surgical margins, there was local recurrence within 2 years for most patients.¹²

Large tumors invading nearby structures may not be amenable to surgical resection because of extensive local growth, propensity for skip lesions, and localization near vital organs of the head and neck.^5,7 The extended delay in diagnosis often seen in CAS allows for advanced local progression, resulting in large areas of resection. In a case series (N=8), the average surgical defect measured 14.3×11.8 cm, necessitating reconstruction with either a tissue flap or split-thickness skin graft in every case because primary closure was not possible. More than 80% of patients in this study still had positive margins after surgery, necessitating the use of additional chemotherapy or radiation to eradicate remaining disease.⁷ In several studies, multimodality therapy was associated with improved overall survival.^7,14,30

Mohs Micrographic Surgery—Mohs micrographic surgery is the standard of care for many aggressive cutaneous malignancies on the head, but its utility for the treatment of CAS is uncertain. Only a few studies have compared the efficacy of MMS vs wide local excision (WLE). There have been reports of recurrence-free follow-up at 12, 16, 18, 20, and 72 months after MMS.^31-36 The latter case showed a patient who underwent MMS with a 72-month relapse-free survival, whereas other patients who underwent WLE only survived 5 to 7 months without recurrence.³⁶ In another study, there was a local recurrence rate of 42.9% after a median follow-up of 4 years in 7 patients with CAS treated with complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment, which is less than the reported recurrence rates of 72% to 84% after standard excisional procedures.^28,37

Houpe et al³⁸ conducted a systematic review of the use of WLE vs MMS; the median overall survival was longest for WLE in conjunction with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy at 39.3 months, followed by MMS alone at 37 months. Mohs micrographic surgery in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiotherapy was used in 1 patient, with a median overall survival of 82 months. Wide local excision alone resulted in a median overall survival of 19.8 months. Although these data are promising and suggest that the combination of surgery with adjuvant therapy may be more beneficial than surgery alone, it is important to note that there were only 9 cases treated with MMS compared with 825 cases treated with WLE.³⁸

Several studies have documented that paraffin-embedded sections may be more useful than frozen sections in the determination of margin positivity from a surgical specimen, as frozen sections showed a poor negative predictive value of 33.3%.^7,35 Mohs micrographic surgery has been proposed for tumors measuring less than 5 cm; however, the most recent appropriate use criteria for MMS of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery deemed the use of MMS for angiosarcoma uncertain.^32,33,37 Further research is necessary to elucidate the role of MMS in the management of CAS.

Radiotherapy—Radiotherapy is a common adjuvant to surgical resection but has been used palliatively in patients with tumors that are unresectable. Improved local control and disease-free survival have been observed with the combination of radiation and surgery. A dose response to radiotherapy has been demonstrated,^18,30 with 1 study showing that patients who received more than 5000 cGy of radiotherapy achieved better local control than patients who received 4500 cGy or less.¹⁸ Pawlik et al⁷ showed a decreased chance of death with the addition of adjunctive radiotherapy, and patients who underwent postoperative radiotherapy demonstrated a median survival almost 4-times longer than patients who did not receive radiation. Morrison et al³⁹ reported that radiation therapy administered to patients with no clinically evident disease after surgical resection resulted in improved local control and overall survival vs patients who were irradiated with clinically evident disease.

Complications of radiotherapy for angiosarcoma have been reported, including xerostomia, nonfunctionally significant fibrosis, chronic ulceration/cellulitis of the scalp, necrosis requiring debridement, severe ocular complications, and fibrosis of the eyelids requiring surgical intervention.¹⁴ Radiation therapy also poses unique risks to patients with radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast, as many of these patients have already received the maximum recommended dose of radiation in the affected areas and additional radiation could exacerbate their CAS.

Chemotherapy—Chemotherapy occasionally is used as an adjunct to surgical resection with positive margins or as palliative care when surgical resection is not possible. Unfortunately, STSs have a response rate of less than 40% to standard chemotherapy.⁴⁰ Studies in which the use of chemotherapy is evaluated for CAS have mixed results. Mark et al¹⁸ reported no significant overall survival benefit when comparing CAS treated with surgery plus radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Torres et al⁴¹ evaluated radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast and found a reduced risk for local recurrence in patients receiving chemotherapy in addition to surgery, indicating that chemotherapy may be useful in this subset of patients when radiation is not recommended.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents such as paclitaxel, doxorubicin, or doxorubicin in combination with mesna and ifosfamide (MAI) are common.³⁹ Median progression-free survival is 5.4 months, 4 to 5.6 months, and 3.9 months for MAI, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin, respectively.^8,9,42-46 Improved prognosis with MAI may indicate that combination chemotherapy regimens are more effective than single-agent regimens. Cutaneous angiosarcomas may respond better to paclitaxel than doxorubicin, and angiosarcomas of the scalp and face have shown a better response to paclitaxel.^47,48

Other Therapies—Although there have not been large-scale studies performed on alternative treatments, there are several case reports on the use of immune modulators, biologics, β-blockers, and various other therapies in the treatment of CAS. The following studies include small sample sizes of patients with metastatic or locally aggressive disease not amenable to surgical resection, which may affect reported outcomes and survival times.^49-57 In addition, several studies include patients with visceral angiosarcoma, which may not be generalizable to the CAS population. Even so, these treatment alternatives should not be overlooked because there are few agents that are truly efficacious in the treatment of CAS.

Results on the use of VEGF and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been disappointing. There have been reports of median progression-free survival of only 3.8 months with sorafenib treatment, 3 months with pazopanib, and 6 months with bevacizumab.^49-51 However, one study of patients who were treated with bevacizumab combined with radiation and surgery resulted in a complete response in 2 patients, with no evidence of residual disease at the last follow-up of 8.5 months and 2.1 years.⁵²

Studies on the utility of β-blockers in the treatment of CAS have shown mixed results. Pasquier et al⁵³ evaluated the use of adjunctive therapy with propranolol and vinblastine-based chemotherapy, with a promising median progression-free survival of 11 months compared with an average of 3 to 6 months with conventional chemotherapy regimens. However, in vitro studies reported by Pasquier et al⁵³ indicated that the addition of propranolol to doxorubicin or paclitaxel did not result in increased efficacy. Chow et al⁵⁴ demonstrated that propranolol monotherapy resulted in a reduction of the proliferative index of scalp angiosarcoma by 34% after only 1 week of treatment. This was followed by combination therapy of propranolol, paclitaxel, and radiation, which resulted in substantial tumor regression and no evidence of metastasis after 8 months of therapy.⁵⁴

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been a recent subject of interest in the treatment of angiosarcoma. Two case reports showed improvement in CAS of the face and primary pleural angiosarcoma with a course of pembrolizumab.^55,56 In another case series, investigators used immune checkpoint inhibitors in 7 patients with cutaneous, breast, or radiation-associated angiosarcoma and found partial response in several patients treated with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab-nivolumab and complete response in 1 patient treated with anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies. The authors of this study hypothesized that treatment response was associated with the mutational profile of tumors, including mutational signatures of UV radiation with a large number of C-to-T substitutions similar to melanomas.⁵⁷

Conclusion

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is a rare and aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis due to delayed detection. A thorough skin examination and heightened awareness of CAS by dermatologists may result in early biopsy and shortened time to a definitive diagnosis. Until quality evidence allows for the creation of consensus guidelines, care at a cancer center that specializes in rare and difficult-to-treat tumors and employs a multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimizing patient outcomes. Current knowledge supports surgery with negative margins as the mainstay of treatment, with adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies as possible additions for extensive disease. The role of MMS is uncertain, and because of the lack of contiguity in CAS, it may not be an optimal treatment.

Angiosarcomas are aggressive endothelial cell tumors of vascular origin that account for 1% to 2% of all soft tissue sarcomas in the United States.^1,2 They can affect any organ in the body but most commonly affect the skin and soft tissue. Cutaneous angiosarcoma (CAS) is a rare type of skin cancer that can present in 2 forms: primary and secondary. The primary form lacks a known underlying cause, but secondary CAS commonly is linked to prior radiation therapy of the breast as well as lymphedema of the breast and arm. Secondary CAS may require different treatment than primary CAS, as radiation therapy poses risks to patients with radiation-induced CAS.³ The prognosis of CAS is poor due to delayed diagnosis. Current treatment modalities have a high rate of local recurrence and/or distant metastasis, but recent advances in surgery and other therapies such as radiation and immunotherapy provide hope for more successful disease control.

Dermatologists may be responsible for the initial diagnosis and management of CAS. They must be familiar with its presentation, as this condition can be difficult to diagnose and mimics other diseases. Additionally, dermatologists must understand the role of varying treatment modalities including Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) in the management of CAS. This review will provide an overview of the epidemiology, presentation, and pathologic features of CAS and will discuss both emerging and existing treatments.

Epidemiology

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may present in various locations in the body, predominantly on the head and neck.^4,5 Approximately 85% of cases arise in patients older than 60 years, and most of these patients are White men.^1,4,5 The risk factors for the development of CAS include prior radiation exposure; chronic lymphedema (ie, Stewart-Treves syndrome); and familial syndromes including neurofibromatosis 1, BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, Maffucci syndrome, and Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome. Exogenous exposure to toxins such as vinyl chloride, thorium dioxide, or anabolic steroids also is associated with angiosarcoma, primarily in the form of visceral disease such as hepatic angiosarcoma.⁶

The average tumor size is approximately 4 to 5 cm; however, some tumors may grow larger than 10 cm.^7,8 Metastasis through hematogenous or lymphatic spread is fairly common, occurring in approximately 16% to 35% of patients. The lungs and liver are the most common sites of metastasis.^9,10 The age-adjusted incidence rate of CAS is decreasing for patients younger than 50 years, from 1.30 in 1995 to 2004 to 1.10 in 2005 to 2014, but increasing for individuals older than 70 years, from 2.53 in 1995 to 2004 to 2.87 in 2005 to 2014.⁴ The incidence of angiosarcoma also has grown in the female population, likely due to the increasing use of radiotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer.¹¹

The high rates of CAS on the head and neck may be explained by the increased vascularity and UV exposure in these locations.¹² In a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population-based study (N=811), 43% of patients with CAS had a history of other malignancies such as breast, prostate, genitourinary, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract cancers.⁴ Cutaneous angiosarcoma can develop secondary to the primary cancer treatment, as seen in patients who develop CAS following radiation therapy.¹¹

The underlying mechanism of CAS is believed to involve dysregulation of angiogenesis due to the vascular origin of these tumors. Studies have identified overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), TP53 mutations, and RAS pathway mutations as potential contributing factors to the pathogenesis of angiosarcoma.⁶ Molecular differences between primary and secondary angiosarcomas are not well documented; however, radiation-associated CAS has been found to have higher expression of LYN and PRKCΘ, while non–radiation-induced lesions express FTL1 and AKT3.² Chromosomal abnormalities have been identified in a small set of primary CAS patients, but the specific role of these abnormalities in the pathogenesis of CAS remains unclear.⁷

Prognosis

Cutaneous angiosarcoma has a poor prognosis, with 3-year disease-specific survival rates as low as 40% and 5-year rates as low as 17%.^4,5,13,14 Survival rates increased from 1985 to 2014, likely due to earlier diagnoses and more effective treatments.⁴ Several factors are associated with worse prognosis, including metastatic disease, increasing age, scalp and neck tumor location, tumor size greater than 5 cm, necrosis, multiple skin lesions, and nodular and epithelioid morphology.^4,5,10,13-16 Factors including sex, race, and presence of another malignancy do not affect survival.^4,5 Prognosis in CAS may be evaluated by TNM tumor staging. The American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition) for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) commonly is used; however, CAS is not included in this staging system because it does not share the same behavior and natural history as other types of STS. This staging system provides separate guidelines for STS of the head and neck and STS of the extremities and trunk because of the smaller size but paradoxically higher risk for head and neck tumors.¹⁷ Given that there is no agreed-upon staging system for CAS, prognosis and communication among providers may be complicated.

Early CAS typically presents as single or multifocal ill-defined, enlarging, violaceous or dusky red macules or patches (Figure 1). Lesions often rapidly develop into raised nodules and plaques that may bleed and ulcerate. Other common symptoms include pain, edema, neuropathy, anemia, and weight loss; however, it is not uncommon for lesions to be asymptomatic.^8,18-20 Nodular lesions are more common on the scalp, and patches are more common on the face and neck.¹⁶ Tumors typically extend into the dermis, and aggressive cancers may invade the subcutaneous tissue and fascia.²

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may mimic ecchymosis, hemangioma, lymphangioma, edema, cellulitis, or scarring alopecia. Its nonspecific features make it difficult to recognize without dermoscopy or ultrasonography, which often results in delayed diagnosis and treatment. The median delay typically is 5 to 7 months and up to 1 year for some patients.^7,16 Cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp tends to have a longer diagnostic delay than other areas of the body, which may be attributable to challenges in tumor identification and visualization by patients.¹⁶

Dermoscopy and ultrasonography can aid in the diagnosis of CAS. Dermoscopy may demonstrate a range of colors with yellow, brown, or red areas in a violaceous background. Other reported features include white veils and lines, purple ovals, pink-purple “steamlike” areas, and atypical vessels (Figure 2).^21-23 Dermoscopic findings may appear similar to other vascular tumors, such as hemangioma and Kaposi sarcoma, or nonvascular tumors, including amelanotic melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. Ultrasonography may show ill-defined, hypoechoic areas with anechoic reticular channels and a hypoechoic subepidermal layer.²¹ Other radiologic modalities, such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography, are nonspecific and are more useful in evaluating the extent of tumor spread in visceral angiosarcoma. Magnetic resonance imaging in CAS may indicate malignancy with the presence of high T2 and T1 signal intensity and high-flow serpentine vessels.²⁴

Histopathology

Histologically, angiosarcoma is characterized by anastomosing irregular vascular channels lined by a single layer of endothelial cells displaying slight to moderate atypia.²⁵ These vascular channels dissect between collagen bundles and adipocytes. Monocyte infiltration may be observed.⁶ The neoplastic endothelial cells may present as spindle-shaped, round, polygonal, or epithelioid with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Histologic features differ based on the type of clinical lesion (Figure 3). In a study of CAS in Asian populations, nodular tumors showed solid sheets of pleomorphic spindle cells, many mitotic figures, and widely hemorrhagic spaces, whereas nonnodular tumors showed irregular vascular spaces dissecting collagen.¹⁶ Poorly differentiated tumors may present with hyperchromatic nuclei and prominent nucleoli, papillary endothelial formations, mitoses, and possible hemorrhage or necrosis.^2,6,8 Histologic specimens also may reveal calcified bodies and hemosiderin particles.¹⁹ Angiosarcomas typically are invasive without a clear capsule or border.⁶

Photograph courtesy of Kim HooKim, MD (Camden, New Jersey).

Secondary CAS in the setting of lymphedema and radiation therapy has MYC amplification and is positive for MYC via immunohistochemistry, which is uncommon in primary angiosarcoma.²⁶ Immunohistochemical staining of tumor specimens is helpful to confirm the diagnosis of CAS. These markers include CD31, CD34, CD117, cytokeratin, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, factor VIII–related antigen, Ulex europaeus agglutinin-1, von Willebrand factor, and VEGF.^6,19,27,28 Notably, advanced angiosarcomas with progressive dedifferentiation often lose these markers.

Treatment

Surgery—The majority of patients treated for CAS undergo surgical resection, as surgery has been shown to have the best prognosis for patients.^5,9,10,13,15 Achieving R0 resection (microscopically negative margins) is the most important factor in determining the success of treatment, with incomplete surgical resection resulting in higher rates of systemic and local spread.²⁹ Abraham et al⁸ found that the median disease-specific survival of patients with microscopically negative margins was 83.7 months; patients with microscopically positive and grossly positive margins had median disease-specific survival of 63.4 and 18.1 months, respectively. In a case series of patients undergoing resection with negative surgical margins, 4 patients demonstrated no evidence of local recurrence or systemic disease at an average of 4.3 years after therapy, and the other 4 patients each had 1 local recurrence but were disease free an average of 4.8 years after removal of the recurrent lesion. In a series of 27 patients with positive surgical margins, there was local recurrence within 2 years for most patients.¹²

Large tumors invading nearby structures may not be amenable to surgical resection because of extensive local growth, propensity for skip lesions, and localization near vital organs of the head and neck.^5,7 The extended delay in diagnosis often seen in CAS allows for advanced local progression, resulting in large areas of resection. In a case series (N=8), the average surgical defect measured 14.3×11.8 cm, necessitating reconstruction with either a tissue flap or split-thickness skin graft in every case because primary closure was not possible. More than 80% of patients in this study still had positive margins after surgery, necessitating the use of additional chemotherapy or radiation to eradicate remaining disease.⁷ In several studies, multimodality therapy was associated with improved overall survival.^7,14,30

Mohs Micrographic Surgery—Mohs micrographic surgery is the standard of care for many aggressive cutaneous malignancies on the head, but its utility for the treatment of CAS is uncertain. Only a few studies have compared the efficacy of MMS vs wide local excision (WLE). There have been reports of recurrence-free follow-up at 12, 16, 18, 20, and 72 months after MMS.^31-36 The latter case showed a patient who underwent MMS with a 72-month relapse-free survival, whereas other patients who underwent WLE only survived 5 to 7 months without recurrence.³⁶ In another study, there was a local recurrence rate of 42.9% after a median follow-up of 4 years in 7 patients with CAS treated with complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment, which is less than the reported recurrence rates of 72% to 84% after standard excisional procedures.^28,37

Houpe et al³⁸ conducted a systematic review of the use of WLE vs MMS; the median overall survival was longest for WLE in conjunction with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy at 39.3 months, followed by MMS alone at 37 months. Mohs micrographic surgery in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiotherapy was used in 1 patient, with a median overall survival of 82 months. Wide local excision alone resulted in a median overall survival of 19.8 months. Although these data are promising and suggest that the combination of surgery with adjuvant therapy may be more beneficial than surgery alone, it is important to note that there were only 9 cases treated with MMS compared with 825 cases treated with WLE.³⁸

Several studies have documented that paraffin-embedded sections may be more useful than frozen sections in the determination of margin positivity from a surgical specimen, as frozen sections showed a poor negative predictive value of 33.3%.^7,35 Mohs micrographic surgery has been proposed for tumors measuring less than 5 cm; however, the most recent appropriate use criteria for MMS of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery deemed the use of MMS for angiosarcoma uncertain.^32,33,37 Further research is necessary to elucidate the role of MMS in the management of CAS.

Radiotherapy—Radiotherapy is a common adjuvant to surgical resection but has been used palliatively in patients with tumors that are unresectable. Improved local control and disease-free survival have been observed with the combination of radiation and surgery. A dose response to radiotherapy has been demonstrated,^18,30 with 1 study showing that patients who received more than 5000 cGy of radiotherapy achieved better local control than patients who received 4500 cGy or less.¹⁸ Pawlik et al⁷ showed a decreased chance of death with the addition of adjunctive radiotherapy, and patients who underwent postoperative radiotherapy demonstrated a median survival almost 4-times longer than patients who did not receive radiation. Morrison et al³⁹ reported that radiation therapy administered to patients with no clinically evident disease after surgical resection resulted in improved local control and overall survival vs patients who were irradiated with clinically evident disease.

Complications of radiotherapy for angiosarcoma have been reported, including xerostomia, nonfunctionally significant fibrosis, chronic ulceration/cellulitis of the scalp, necrosis requiring debridement, severe ocular complications, and fibrosis of the eyelids requiring surgical intervention.¹⁴ Radiation therapy also poses unique risks to patients with radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast, as many of these patients have already received the maximum recommended dose of radiation in the affected areas and additional radiation could exacerbate their CAS.

Chemotherapy—Chemotherapy occasionally is used as an adjunct to surgical resection with positive margins or as palliative care when surgical resection is not possible. Unfortunately, STSs have a response rate of less than 40% to standard chemotherapy.⁴⁰ Studies in which the use of chemotherapy is evaluated for CAS have mixed results. Mark et al¹⁸ reported no significant overall survival benefit when comparing CAS treated with surgery plus radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Torres et al⁴¹ evaluated radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast and found a reduced risk for local recurrence in patients receiving chemotherapy in addition to surgery, indicating that chemotherapy may be useful in this subset of patients when radiation is not recommended.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents such as paclitaxel, doxorubicin, or doxorubicin in combination with mesna and ifosfamide (MAI) are common.³⁹ Median progression-free survival is 5.4 months, 4 to 5.6 months, and 3.9 months for MAI, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin, respectively.^8,9,42-46 Improved prognosis with MAI may indicate that combination chemotherapy regimens are more effective than single-agent regimens. Cutaneous angiosarcomas may respond better to paclitaxel than doxorubicin, and angiosarcomas of the scalp and face have shown a better response to paclitaxel.^47,48

Other Therapies—Although there have not been large-scale studies performed on alternative treatments, there are several case reports on the use of immune modulators, biologics, β-blockers, and various other therapies in the treatment of CAS. The following studies include small sample sizes of patients with metastatic or locally aggressive disease not amenable to surgical resection, which may affect reported outcomes and survival times.^49-57 In addition, several studies include patients with visceral angiosarcoma, which may not be generalizable to the CAS population. Even so, these treatment alternatives should not be overlooked because there are few agents that are truly efficacious in the treatment of CAS.

Results on the use of VEGF and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been disappointing. There have been reports of median progression-free survival of only 3.8 months with sorafenib treatment, 3 months with pazopanib, and 6 months with bevacizumab.^49-51 However, one study of patients who were treated with bevacizumab combined with radiation and surgery resulted in a complete response in 2 patients, with no evidence of residual disease at the last follow-up of 8.5 months and 2.1 years.⁵²

Studies on the utility of β-blockers in the treatment of CAS have shown mixed results. Pasquier et al⁵³ evaluated the use of adjunctive therapy with propranolol and vinblastine-based chemotherapy, with a promising median progression-free survival of 11 months compared with an average of 3 to 6 months with conventional chemotherapy regimens. However, in vitro studies reported by Pasquier et al⁵³ indicated that the addition of propranolol to doxorubicin or paclitaxel did not result in increased efficacy. Chow et al⁵⁴ demonstrated that propranolol monotherapy resulted in a reduction of the proliferative index of scalp angiosarcoma by 34% after only 1 week of treatment. This was followed by combination therapy of propranolol, paclitaxel, and radiation, which resulted in substantial tumor regression and no evidence of metastasis after 8 months of therapy.⁵⁴

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been a recent subject of interest in the treatment of angiosarcoma. Two case reports showed improvement in CAS of the face and primary pleural angiosarcoma with a course of pembrolizumab.^55,56 In another case series, investigators used immune checkpoint inhibitors in 7 patients with cutaneous, breast, or radiation-associated angiosarcoma and found partial response in several patients treated with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab-nivolumab and complete response in 1 patient treated with anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies. The authors of this study hypothesized that treatment response was associated with the mutational profile of tumors, including mutational signatures of UV radiation with a large number of C-to-T substitutions similar to melanomas.⁵⁷

Conclusion

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is a rare and aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis due to delayed detection. A thorough skin examination and heightened awareness of CAS by dermatologists may result in early biopsy and shortened time to a definitive diagnosis. Until quality evidence allows for the creation of consensus guidelines, care at a cancer center that specializes in rare and difficult-to-treat tumors and employs a multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimizing patient outcomes. Current knowledge supports surgery with negative margins as the mainstay of treatment, with adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies as possible additions for extensive disease. The role of MMS is uncertain, and because of the lack of contiguity in CAS, it may not be an optimal treatment.

Angiosarcomas are aggressive endothelial cell tumors of vascular origin that account for 1% to 2% of all soft tissue sarcomas in the United States.^1,2 They can affect any organ in the body but most commonly affect the skin and soft tissue. Cutaneous angiosarcoma (CAS) is a rare type of skin cancer that can present in 2 forms: primary and secondary. The primary form lacks a known underlying cause, but secondary CAS commonly is linked to prior radiation therapy of the breast as well as lymphedema of the breast and arm. Secondary CAS may require different treatment than primary CAS, as radiation therapy poses risks to patients with radiation-induced CAS.³ The prognosis of CAS is poor due to delayed diagnosis. Current treatment modalities have a high rate of local recurrence and/or distant metastasis, but recent advances in surgery and other therapies such as radiation and immunotherapy provide hope for more successful disease control.

Dermatologists may be responsible for the initial diagnosis and management of CAS. They must be familiar with its presentation, as this condition can be difficult to diagnose and mimics other diseases. Additionally, dermatologists must understand the role of varying treatment modalities including Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) in the management of CAS. This review will provide an overview of the epidemiology, presentation, and pathologic features of CAS and will discuss both emerging and existing treatments.

Epidemiology

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may present in various locations in the body, predominantly on the head and neck.^4,5 Approximately 85% of cases arise in patients older than 60 years, and most of these patients are White men.^1,4,5 The risk factors for the development of CAS include prior radiation exposure; chronic lymphedema (ie, Stewart-Treves syndrome); and familial syndromes including neurofibromatosis 1, BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, Maffucci syndrome, and Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome. Exogenous exposure to toxins such as vinyl chloride, thorium dioxide, or anabolic steroids also is associated with angiosarcoma, primarily in the form of visceral disease such as hepatic angiosarcoma.⁶

The average tumor size is approximately 4 to 5 cm; however, some tumors may grow larger than 10 cm.^7,8 Metastasis through hematogenous or lymphatic spread is fairly common, occurring in approximately 16% to 35% of patients. The lungs and liver are the most common sites of metastasis.^9,10 The age-adjusted incidence rate of CAS is decreasing for patients younger than 50 years, from 1.30 in 1995 to 2004 to 1.10 in 2005 to 2014, but increasing for individuals older than 70 years, from 2.53 in 1995 to 2004 to 2.87 in 2005 to 2014.⁴ The incidence of angiosarcoma also has grown in the female population, likely due to the increasing use of radiotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer.¹¹

The high rates of CAS on the head and neck may be explained by the increased vascularity and UV exposure in these locations.¹² In a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population-based study (N=811), 43% of patients with CAS had a history of other malignancies such as breast, prostate, genitourinary, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract cancers.⁴ Cutaneous angiosarcoma can develop secondary to the primary cancer treatment, as seen in patients who develop CAS following radiation therapy.¹¹

The underlying mechanism of CAS is believed to involve dysregulation of angiogenesis due to the vascular origin of these tumors. Studies have identified overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), TP53 mutations, and RAS pathway mutations as potential contributing factors to the pathogenesis of angiosarcoma.⁶ Molecular differences between primary and secondary angiosarcomas are not well documented; however, radiation-associated CAS has been found to have higher expression of LYN and PRKCΘ, while non–radiation-induced lesions express FTL1 and AKT3.² Chromosomal abnormalities have been identified in a small set of primary CAS patients, but the specific role of these abnormalities in the pathogenesis of CAS remains unclear.⁷

Prognosis

Cutaneous angiosarcoma has a poor prognosis, with 3-year disease-specific survival rates as low as 40% and 5-year rates as low as 17%.^4,5,13,14 Survival rates increased from 1985 to 2014, likely due to earlier diagnoses and more effective treatments.⁴ Several factors are associated with worse prognosis, including metastatic disease, increasing age, scalp and neck tumor location, tumor size greater than 5 cm, necrosis, multiple skin lesions, and nodular and epithelioid morphology.^4,5,10,13-16 Factors including sex, race, and presence of another malignancy do not affect survival.^4,5 Prognosis in CAS may be evaluated by TNM tumor staging. The American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition) for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) commonly is used; however, CAS is not included in this staging system because it does not share the same behavior and natural history as other types of STS. This staging system provides separate guidelines for STS of the head and neck and STS of the extremities and trunk because of the smaller size but paradoxically higher risk for head and neck tumors.¹⁷ Given that there is no agreed-upon staging system for CAS, prognosis and communication among providers may be complicated.

Early CAS typically presents as single or multifocal ill-defined, enlarging, violaceous or dusky red macules or patches (Figure 1). Lesions often rapidly develop into raised nodules and plaques that may bleed and ulcerate. Other common symptoms include pain, edema, neuropathy, anemia, and weight loss; however, it is not uncommon for lesions to be asymptomatic.^8,18-20 Nodular lesions are more common on the scalp, and patches are more common on the face and neck.¹⁶ Tumors typically extend into the dermis, and aggressive cancers may invade the subcutaneous tissue and fascia.²

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may mimic ecchymosis, hemangioma, lymphangioma, edema, cellulitis, or scarring alopecia. Its nonspecific features make it difficult to recognize without dermoscopy or ultrasonography, which often results in delayed diagnosis and treatment. The median delay typically is 5 to 7 months and up to 1 year for some patients.^7,16 Cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp tends to have a longer diagnostic delay than other areas of the body, which may be attributable to challenges in tumor identification and visualization by patients.¹⁶

Dermoscopy and ultrasonography can aid in the diagnosis of CAS. Dermoscopy may demonstrate a range of colors with yellow, brown, or red areas in a violaceous background. Other reported features include white veils and lines, purple ovals, pink-purple “steamlike” areas, and atypical vessels (Figure 2).^21-23 Dermoscopic findings may appear similar to other vascular tumors, such as hemangioma and Kaposi sarcoma, or nonvascular tumors, including amelanotic melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. Ultrasonography may show ill-defined, hypoechoic areas with anechoic reticular channels and a hypoechoic subepidermal layer.²¹ Other radiologic modalities, such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography, are nonspecific and are more useful in evaluating the extent of tumor spread in visceral angiosarcoma. Magnetic resonance imaging in CAS may indicate malignancy with the presence of high T2 and T1 signal intensity and high-flow serpentine vessels.²⁴

Histopathology

Histologically, angiosarcoma is characterized by anastomosing irregular vascular channels lined by a single layer of endothelial cells displaying slight to moderate atypia.²⁵ These vascular channels dissect between collagen bundles and adipocytes. Monocyte infiltration may be observed.⁶ The neoplastic endothelial cells may present as spindle-shaped, round, polygonal, or epithelioid with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Histologic features differ based on the type of clinical lesion (Figure 3). In a study of CAS in Asian populations, nodular tumors showed solid sheets of pleomorphic spindle cells, many mitotic figures, and widely hemorrhagic spaces, whereas nonnodular tumors showed irregular vascular spaces dissecting collagen.¹⁶ Poorly differentiated tumors may present with hyperchromatic nuclei and prominent nucleoli, papillary endothelial formations, mitoses, and possible hemorrhage or necrosis.^2,6,8 Histologic specimens also may reveal calcified bodies and hemosiderin particles.¹⁹ Angiosarcomas typically are invasive without a clear capsule or border.⁶

Photograph courtesy of Kim HooKim, MD (Camden, New Jersey).

Secondary CAS in the setting of lymphedema and radiation therapy has MYC amplification and is positive for MYC via immunohistochemistry, which is uncommon in primary angiosarcoma.²⁶ Immunohistochemical staining of tumor specimens is helpful to confirm the diagnosis of CAS. These markers include CD31, CD34, CD117, cytokeratin, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, factor VIII–related antigen, Ulex europaeus agglutinin-1, von Willebrand factor, and VEGF.^6,19,27,28 Notably, advanced angiosarcomas with progressive dedifferentiation often lose these markers.

Treatment

Surgery—The majority of patients treated for CAS undergo surgical resection, as surgery has been shown to have the best prognosis for patients.^5,9,10,13,15 Achieving R0 resection (microscopically negative margins) is the most important factor in determining the success of treatment, with incomplete surgical resection resulting in higher rates of systemic and local spread.²⁹ Abraham et al⁸ found that the median disease-specific survival of patients with microscopically negative margins was 83.7 months; patients with microscopically positive and grossly positive margins had median disease-specific survival of 63.4 and 18.1 months, respectively. In a case series of patients undergoing resection with negative surgical margins, 4 patients demonstrated no evidence of local recurrence or systemic disease at an average of 4.3 years after therapy, and the other 4 patients each had 1 local recurrence but were disease free an average of 4.8 years after removal of the recurrent lesion. In a series of 27 patients with positive surgical margins, there was local recurrence within 2 years for most patients.¹²

Large tumors invading nearby structures may not be amenable to surgical resection because of extensive local growth, propensity for skip lesions, and localization near vital organs of the head and neck.^5,7 The extended delay in diagnosis often seen in CAS allows for advanced local progression, resulting in large areas of resection. In a case series (N=8), the average surgical defect measured 14.3×11.8 cm, necessitating reconstruction with either a tissue flap or split-thickness skin graft in every case because primary closure was not possible. More than 80% of patients in this study still had positive margins after surgery, necessitating the use of additional chemotherapy or radiation to eradicate remaining disease.⁷ In several studies, multimodality therapy was associated with improved overall survival.^7,14,30

Mohs Micrographic Surgery—Mohs micrographic surgery is the standard of care for many aggressive cutaneous malignancies on the head, but its utility for the treatment of CAS is uncertain. Only a few studies have compared the efficacy of MMS vs wide local excision (WLE). There have been reports of recurrence-free follow-up at 12, 16, 18, 20, and 72 months after MMS.^31-36 The latter case showed a patient who underwent MMS with a 72-month relapse-free survival, whereas other patients who underwent WLE only survived 5 to 7 months without recurrence.³⁶ In another study, there was a local recurrence rate of 42.9% after a median follow-up of 4 years in 7 patients with CAS treated with complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment, which is less than the reported recurrence rates of 72% to 84% after standard excisional procedures.^28,37

Houpe et al³⁸ conducted a systematic review of the use of WLE vs MMS; the median overall survival was longest for WLE in conjunction with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy at 39.3 months, followed by MMS alone at 37 months. Mohs micrographic surgery in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiotherapy was used in 1 patient, with a median overall survival of 82 months. Wide local excision alone resulted in a median overall survival of 19.8 months. Although these data are promising and suggest that the combination of surgery with adjuvant therapy may be more beneficial than surgery alone, it is important to note that there were only 9 cases treated with MMS compared with 825 cases treated with WLE.³⁸

Several studies have documented that paraffin-embedded sections may be more useful than frozen sections in the determination of margin positivity from a surgical specimen, as frozen sections showed a poor negative predictive value of 33.3%.^7,35 Mohs micrographic surgery has been proposed for tumors measuring less than 5 cm; however, the most recent appropriate use criteria for MMS of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery deemed the use of MMS for angiosarcoma uncertain.^32,33,37 Further research is necessary to elucidate the role of MMS in the management of CAS.

Radiotherapy—Radiotherapy is a common adjuvant to surgical resection but has been used palliatively in patients with tumors that are unresectable. Improved local control and disease-free survival have been observed with the combination of radiation and surgery. A dose response to radiotherapy has been demonstrated,^18,30 with 1 study showing that patients who received more than 5000 cGy of radiotherapy achieved better local control than patients who received 4500 cGy or less.¹⁸ Pawlik et al⁷ showed a decreased chance of death with the addition of adjunctive radiotherapy, and patients who underwent postoperative radiotherapy demonstrated a median survival almost 4-times longer than patients who did not receive radiation. Morrison et al³⁹ reported that radiation therapy administered to patients with no clinically evident disease after surgical resection resulted in improved local control and overall survival vs patients who were irradiated with clinically evident disease.

Complications of radiotherapy for angiosarcoma have been reported, including xerostomia, nonfunctionally significant fibrosis, chronic ulceration/cellulitis of the scalp, necrosis requiring debridement, severe ocular complications, and fibrosis of the eyelids requiring surgical intervention.¹⁴ Radiation therapy also poses unique risks to patients with radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast, as many of these patients have already received the maximum recommended dose of radiation in the affected areas and additional radiation could exacerbate their CAS.

Chemotherapy—Chemotherapy occasionally is used as an adjunct to surgical resection with positive margins or as palliative care when surgical resection is not possible. Unfortunately, STSs have a response rate of less than 40% to standard chemotherapy.⁴⁰ Studies in which the use of chemotherapy is evaluated for CAS have mixed results. Mark et al¹⁸ reported no significant overall survival benefit when comparing CAS treated with surgery plus radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Torres et al⁴¹ evaluated radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast and found a reduced risk for local recurrence in patients receiving chemotherapy in addition to surgery, indicating that chemotherapy may be useful in this subset of patients when radiation is not recommended.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents such as paclitaxel, doxorubicin, or doxorubicin in combination with mesna and ifosfamide (MAI) are common.³⁹ Median progression-free survival is 5.4 months, 4 to 5.6 months, and 3.9 months for MAI, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin, respectively.^8,9,42-46 Improved prognosis with MAI may indicate that combination chemotherapy regimens are more effective than single-agent regimens. Cutaneous angiosarcomas may respond better to paclitaxel than doxorubicin, and angiosarcomas of the scalp and face have shown a better response to paclitaxel.^47,48

Other Therapies—Although there have not been large-scale studies performed on alternative treatments, there are several case reports on the use of immune modulators, biologics, β-blockers, and various other therapies in the treatment of CAS. The following studies include small sample sizes of patients with metastatic or locally aggressive disease not amenable to surgical resection, which may affect reported outcomes and survival times.^49-57 In addition, several studies include patients with visceral angiosarcoma, which may not be generalizable to the CAS population. Even so, these treatment alternatives should not be overlooked because there are few agents that are truly efficacious in the treatment of CAS.

Results on the use of VEGF and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been disappointing. There have been reports of median progression-free survival of only 3.8 months with sorafenib treatment, 3 months with pazopanib, and 6 months with bevacizumab.^49-51 However, one study of patients who were treated with bevacizumab combined with radiation and surgery resulted in a complete response in 2 patients, with no evidence of residual disease at the last follow-up of 8.5 months and 2.1 years.⁵²

Studies on the utility of β-blockers in the treatment of CAS have shown mixed results. Pasquier et al⁵³ evaluated the use of adjunctive therapy with propranolol and vinblastine-based chemotherapy, with a promising median progression-free survival of 11 months compared with an average of 3 to 6 months with conventional chemotherapy regimens. However, in vitro studies reported by Pasquier et al⁵³ indicated that the addition of propranolol to doxorubicin or paclitaxel did not result in increased efficacy. Chow et al⁵⁴ demonstrated that propranolol monotherapy resulted in a reduction of the proliferative index of scalp angiosarcoma by 34% after only 1 week of treatment. This was followed by combination therapy of propranolol, paclitaxel, and radiation, which resulted in substantial tumor regression and no evidence of metastasis after 8 months of therapy.⁵⁴

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been a recent subject of interest in the treatment of angiosarcoma. Two case reports showed improvement in CAS of the face and primary pleural angiosarcoma with a course of pembrolizumab.^55,56 In another case series, investigators used immune checkpoint inhibitors in 7 patients with cutaneous, breast, or radiation-associated angiosarcoma and found partial response in several patients treated with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab-nivolumab and complete response in 1 patient treated with anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies. The authors of this study hypothesized that treatment response was associated with the mutational profile of tumors, including mutational signatures of UV radiation with a large number of C-to-T substitutions similar to melanomas.⁵⁷

Conclusion

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is a rare and aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis due to delayed detection. A thorough skin examination and heightened awareness of CAS by dermatologists may result in early biopsy and shortened time to a definitive diagnosis. Until quality evidence allows for the creation of consensus guidelines, care at a cancer center that specializes in rare and difficult-to-treat tumors and employs a multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimizing patient outcomes. Current knowledge supports surgery with negative margins as the mainstay of treatment, with adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies as possible additions for extensive disease. The role of MMS is uncertain, and because of the lack of contiguity in CAS, it may not be an optimal treatment.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated recurrence rates of BCC of the ear in 102 patients who underwent treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or radiation therapy (RT) at a single institution between January 2017 and December 2019. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. Recurrence rates were assessed over a mean follow-up time of 2.8 years. Although MMS is the gold standard for treatment of BCC of the ear, RT may be a suitable alternative for nonsurgical candidates.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. Given that these aggressive histologic subtypes—defined as morpheaform, basosquamous, sclerosing, infiltrative, or micronodular in any portion of the tumor—have been reported as independent predictors of recurrence,^1,2 BCC of the ear may be more likely to recur.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is the gold standard for the treatment of BCC of the ear. For nonsurgical candidates—those with high bleeding risk, low life expectancy, or other medical or social factors—definitive radiation therapy (RT) may be an option. Our study sought to examine recurrence rates in patients with BCC of the ear treated with MMS vs RT.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing treatment of BCC of the ear at Bighorn Mohs Surgery and Dermatology Center (San Diego, California) between January 2017 and December 2019 was conducted. A total of 507 medical records were reviewed, and 102 patients were included in the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of biopsy-confirmed BCC of the ear that was treated with MMS, RT, or both. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. This retrospective review of medical records was exempt from institutional review board approval, as it did not involve direct human research subjects, solely entailing a retrospective examination of existing data.

Results

Of the 102 patients included, 82 were male and 20 were female, with an average age of 71 years. All patients were White with the exception of 1 patient whose race was unknown. Two patients were immunocompromised. The helix was identified as the most frequently involved site on the ear (Table). Most of the tumors (56/102) exhibited aggressive histologic subtypes; 36 tumors had nonaggressive histology, and 10 had no subtype listed. Two of the BCCs demonstrated perineural invasion on biopsy. Mohs micrographic surgery was used to treat 96 BCCs, definitive RT was used to treat 5 BCCs (all of which occurred in nonsurgical candidates), and MMS and adjuvant RT were used in 1 patient given multifocal perineural involvement. All 5 patients treated with definitive RT received electron beam radiation therapy; the total dose ranged from 5100 to 6000 cGy divided into 17 to 24 fractions. The final MMS defects ranged from 6 to 55 mm in size. The average follow-up time was 2.8 years. One of the BCCs on the helix that was treated with MMS recurred after 1.3 years. The overall recurrence rate was 0.98%. None of the patients treated with definitive RT experienced recurrence after the mean follow-up time of 2.8 years.

Comment

Basal cell carcinoma is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, with approximately 2 million new cases each year.¹ Treatment modalities for localized BCC include MMS, surgical excision, electrodesiccation and curettage, topical and intralesional medications, laser therapy, and RT. For high-risk BCCs, MMS is associated with the lowest recurrence rates⁴ and remains the gold standard for treatment. For patients with contraindications to surgery, definitive RT is an alternative treatment for high-risk BCC.¹

Definitive RT can be employed for patients who are poor surgical candidates or when surgery would result in substantial morbidity, impaired function, and/or poor cosmesis.³ Radiation therapy for skin cancers of the ear commonly is administered using high-energy electrons that produce double-strand breaks in the DNA of malignant cells, leading to cell death.⁴ Disadvantages of RT compared to MMS include a longer treatment course (3 to 6 weeks), possible minimal long-term cosmetic sequelae (eg, color or texture mismatch), lack of pathologic confirmation of margin control, and small risk for secondary malignancy in the treatment field over 2 to 3 decades. For patients with incurable or metastatic disease, palliative RT can provide local control and/or symptomatic relief to improve quality of life.⁴ Adjuvant RT may be indicated if there is substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS when margins are unable to be achieved or in patients who may not tolerate prolonged or extensive surgical procedures.³

Basal cell carcinoma of the ear is considered a high-risk anatomic location independent of other prognostic factors. Basal cell carcinomas of the ear have a higher propensity for more aggressive histologic subtypes and subclinical spread.⁵ Our study demonstrated a higher proportion of aggressive histologic subtypes (56/102 [54.9%]) compared with nonaggressive subtypes (36/102 [35.3%]). There was 1 recurrence of a nodular, sclerosing, and infiltrative BCC on the helix treated with MMS after 1.3 years.

Limitations of our study include that it was conducted at a single institution with a homogenous study population and with relatively short follow-up.

Conclusion

Our study further validates the well-known utility of MMS for the treatment of BCC of the ears. Definitive RT is a suitable alternative for patients who are not surgical candidates. Adjuvant RT may be considered for substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS.³

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated recurrence rates of BCC of the ear in 102 patients who underwent treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or radiation therapy (RT) at a single institution between January 2017 and December 2019. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. Recurrence rates were assessed over a mean follow-up time of 2.8 years. Although MMS is the gold standard for treatment of BCC of the ear, RT may be a suitable alternative for nonsurgical candidates.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. Given that these aggressive histologic subtypes—defined as morpheaform, basosquamous, sclerosing, infiltrative, or micronodular in any portion of the tumor—have been reported as independent predictors of recurrence,^1,2 BCC of the ear may be more likely to recur.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is the gold standard for the treatment of BCC of the ear. For nonsurgical candidates—those with high bleeding risk, low life expectancy, or other medical or social factors—definitive radiation therapy (RT) may be an option. Our study sought to examine recurrence rates in patients with BCC of the ear treated with MMS vs RT.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing treatment of BCC of the ear at Bighorn Mohs Surgery and Dermatology Center (San Diego, California) between January 2017 and December 2019 was conducted. A total of 507 medical records were reviewed, and 102 patients were included in the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of biopsy-confirmed BCC of the ear that was treated with MMS, RT, or both. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. This retrospective review of medical records was exempt from institutional review board approval, as it did not involve direct human research subjects, solely entailing a retrospective examination of existing data.

Results

Of the 102 patients included, 82 were male and 20 were female, with an average age of 71 years. All patients were White with the exception of 1 patient whose race was unknown. Two patients were immunocompromised. The helix was identified as the most frequently involved site on the ear (Table). Most of the tumors (56/102) exhibited aggressive histologic subtypes; 36 tumors had nonaggressive histology, and 10 had no subtype listed. Two of the BCCs demonstrated perineural invasion on biopsy. Mohs micrographic surgery was used to treat 96 BCCs, definitive RT was used to treat 5 BCCs (all of which occurred in nonsurgical candidates), and MMS and adjuvant RT were used in 1 patient given multifocal perineural involvement. All 5 patients treated with definitive RT received electron beam radiation therapy; the total dose ranged from 5100 to 6000 cGy divided into 17 to 24 fractions. The final MMS defects ranged from 6 to 55 mm in size. The average follow-up time was 2.8 years. One of the BCCs on the helix that was treated with MMS recurred after 1.3 years. The overall recurrence rate was 0.98%. None of the patients treated with definitive RT experienced recurrence after the mean follow-up time of 2.8 years.

Comment

Basal cell carcinoma is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, with approximately 2 million new cases each year.¹ Treatment modalities for localized BCC include MMS, surgical excision, electrodesiccation and curettage, topical and intralesional medications, laser therapy, and RT. For high-risk BCCs, MMS is associated with the lowest recurrence rates⁴ and remains the gold standard for treatment. For patients with contraindications to surgery, definitive RT is an alternative treatment for high-risk BCC.¹

Definitive RT can be employed for patients who are poor surgical candidates or when surgery would result in substantial morbidity, impaired function, and/or poor cosmesis.³ Radiation therapy for skin cancers of the ear commonly is administered using high-energy electrons that produce double-strand breaks in the DNA of malignant cells, leading to cell death.⁴ Disadvantages of RT compared to MMS include a longer treatment course (3 to 6 weeks), possible minimal long-term cosmetic sequelae (eg, color or texture mismatch), lack of pathologic confirmation of margin control, and small risk for secondary malignancy in the treatment field over 2 to 3 decades. For patients with incurable or metastatic disease, palliative RT can provide local control and/or symptomatic relief to improve quality of life.⁴ Adjuvant RT may be indicated if there is substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS when margins are unable to be achieved or in patients who may not tolerate prolonged or extensive surgical procedures.³

Basal cell carcinoma of the ear is considered a high-risk anatomic location independent of other prognostic factors. Basal cell carcinomas of the ear have a higher propensity for more aggressive histologic subtypes and subclinical spread.⁵ Our study demonstrated a higher proportion of aggressive histologic subtypes (56/102 [54.9%]) compared with nonaggressive subtypes (36/102 [35.3%]). There was 1 recurrence of a nodular, sclerosing, and infiltrative BCC on the helix treated with MMS after 1.3 years.

Limitations of our study include that it was conducted at a single institution with a homogenous study population and with relatively short follow-up.

Conclusion

Our study further validates the well-known utility of MMS for the treatment of BCC of the ears. Definitive RT is a suitable alternative for patients who are not surgical candidates. Adjuvant RT may be considered for substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS.³

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated recurrence rates of BCC of the ear in 102 patients who underwent treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or radiation therapy (RT) at a single institution between January 2017 and December 2019. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. Recurrence rates were assessed over a mean follow-up time of 2.8 years. Although MMS is the gold standard for treatment of BCC of the ear, RT may be a suitable alternative for nonsurgical candidates.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. Given that these aggressive histologic subtypes—defined as morpheaform, basosquamous, sclerosing, infiltrative, or micronodular in any portion of the tumor—have been reported as independent predictors of recurrence,^1,2 BCC of the ear may be more likely to recur.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is the gold standard for the treatment of BCC of the ear. For nonsurgical candidates—those with high bleeding risk, low life expectancy, or other medical or social factors—definitive radiation therapy (RT) may be an option. Our study sought to examine recurrence rates in patients with BCC of the ear treated with MMS vs RT.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing treatment of BCC of the ear at Bighorn Mohs Surgery and Dermatology Center (San Diego, California) between January 2017 and December 2019 was conducted. A total of 507 medical records were reviewed, and 102 patients were included in the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of biopsy-confirmed BCC of the ear that was treated with MMS, RT, or both. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. This retrospective review of medical records was exempt from institutional review board approval, as it did not involve direct human research subjects, solely entailing a retrospective examination of existing data.

Results

Of the 102 patients included, 82 were male and 20 were female, with an average age of 71 years. All patients were White with the exception of 1 patient whose race was unknown. Two patients were immunocompromised. The helix was identified as the most frequently involved site on the ear (Table). Most of the tumors (56/102) exhibited aggressive histologic subtypes; 36 tumors had nonaggressive histology, and 10 had no subtype listed. Two of the BCCs demonstrated perineural invasion on biopsy. Mohs micrographic surgery was used to treat 96 BCCs, definitive RT was used to treat 5 BCCs (all of which occurred in nonsurgical candidates), and MMS and adjuvant RT were used in 1 patient given multifocal perineural involvement. All 5 patients treated with definitive RT received electron beam radiation therapy; the total dose ranged from 5100 to 6000 cGy divided into 17 to 24 fractions. The final MMS defects ranged from 6 to 55 mm in size. The average follow-up time was 2.8 years. One of the BCCs on the helix that was treated with MMS recurred after 1.3 years. The overall recurrence rate was 0.98%. None of the patients treated with definitive RT experienced recurrence after the mean follow-up time of 2.8 years.

Comment

Basal cell carcinoma is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, with approximately 2 million new cases each year.¹ Treatment modalities for localized BCC include MMS, surgical excision, electrodesiccation and curettage, topical and intralesional medications, laser therapy, and RT. For high-risk BCCs, MMS is associated with the lowest recurrence rates⁴ and remains the gold standard for treatment. For patients with contraindications to surgery, definitive RT is an alternative treatment for high-risk BCC.¹

Definitive RT can be employed for patients who are poor surgical candidates or when surgery would result in substantial morbidity, impaired function, and/or poor cosmesis.³ Radiation therapy for skin cancers of the ear commonly is administered using high-energy electrons that produce double-strand breaks in the DNA of malignant cells, leading to cell death.⁴ Disadvantages of RT compared to MMS include a longer treatment course (3 to 6 weeks), possible minimal long-term cosmetic sequelae (eg, color or texture mismatch), lack of pathologic confirmation of margin control, and small risk for secondary malignancy in the treatment field over 2 to 3 decades. For patients with incurable or metastatic disease, palliative RT can provide local control and/or symptomatic relief to improve quality of life.⁴ Adjuvant RT may be indicated if there is substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS when margins are unable to be achieved or in patients who may not tolerate prolonged or extensive surgical procedures.³

Basal cell carcinoma of the ear is considered a high-risk anatomic location independent of other prognostic factors. Basal cell carcinomas of the ear have a higher propensity for more aggressive histologic subtypes and subclinical spread.⁵ Our study demonstrated a higher proportion of aggressive histologic subtypes (56/102 [54.9%]) compared with nonaggressive subtypes (36/102 [35.3%]). There was 1 recurrence of a nodular, sclerosing, and infiltrative BCC on the helix treated with MMS after 1.3 years.

Limitations of our study include that it was conducted at a single institution with a homogenous study population and with relatively short follow-up.

Conclusion

Our study further validates the well-known utility of MMS for the treatment of BCC of the ears. Definitive RT is a suitable alternative for patients who are not surgical candidates. Adjuvant RT may be considered for substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS.³

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Diagnosis: Nodular Basal Cell Carcinoma

Histopathology of the lesion showed a large basaloid lobule with focal epidermal attachment, peripheral nuclear palisading with cleft formation between the tumor and surrounding stroma, fibromyxoid stroma and mild pleomorphism, and variable mitotic activity and apoptosis (Figure). Based on the clinical presentation and histopathology, the patient was diagnosed with nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC). He underwent a wide local excision of the affected area that was repaired with a splitthickness skin graft.

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer worldwide and typically occurs due to years of UV radiation damage on sun-exposed skin, which accounts for a higher frequency of BCC occurring in patients residing in geographic locations with greater UV exposure (eg, higher and lower latitudes). In addition to cumulative UV dose, the duration of the exposure as well as its intensity also play a role in the development of BCC, particularly in early childhood and adolescence. Nevertheless, UV exposure is not the only risk factor, as 20% of BCCs arise in skin that is not exposed to the sun. Other risk factors include exposure to ionizing radiation and arsenic, immunosuppression, and genetic predisposition.¹ Although these malignancies typically do not metastasize, growth can lead to local tissue destruction and major disfigurement if not treated in a timely fashion.²

In our patient, the differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) given the clinical appearance of the cribriform base and violaceous undermined rim of the ulcer. Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare neutrophilic disorder that often results in ulcers that have been associated with various systemic autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. There are 4 main subtypes of PG: the classic ulcerative type (our patient); the pustular type, which most often is seen in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; the bullous type, which can be seen in patients with an associated lymphoproliferative disorder; and the vegetative type. It frequently is thought of as both a clinical and histologic diagnosis of exclusion due to the nonspecific histopathologic features; most lesions demonstrate an infiltrate of neutrophils in the dermis. A biopsy was crucial in our patient, considering that diagnosis and treatment would have been further delayed had the patient been empirically treated with oral and topical steroids for presumed PG, which is precisely why PG is a diagnosis of exclusion. It is imperative for clinicians to rule out other pathologies, such as infection or malignancy, as demonstrated in our patient. The progressive onset and slow evolution of the lesion over years along with a lack of pain were more suggestive of BCC rather than PG. However, there is a report in the literature of PG mimicking BCC with both clinical and dermoscopic findings.³

Venous or stasis ulcers are painless, and although they rarely occur on the calf, they typically are seen lower on the leg such as on the medial ankles. Our patient endorsed occasional swelling of the affected leg and presented with edema, but overlying stasis change and other signs of venous insufficiency were absent.

Buruli ulcer is a painless chronic debilitating cutaneous disease resulting in indolent necrotizing skin as well as subcutaneous and bone lesions. It is caused by the environmental organism Mycobacterium ulcerans and typically is reported in Africa, Central/South America, the Western Pacific Region, and Australia.⁴ Histopathology usually demonstrates necrosis of subcutaneous tissue and dermal collagen accompanied by inflammation and acidfast bacilli highlighted by Ziehl-Neelsen stain.⁵ Smears of the lesions as well as culture and polymerase chain reaction for acid-fast bacilli also can be performed. Our patient reported no recent travel to any endemic areas and had no other risk factors or exposures to the pathogen responsible for this condition.

Traumatic ulcer also was included in the differential diagnosis, but the patient denied preceding trauma to the area, and the contralateral foot prosthesis did not rub on or impact the affected leg.

Basal cell carcinoma typically is treated surgically, but choice of treatment can depend on the subtype, size, tumor site, and/or patient preference.¹ Other treatment modalities include electrodesiccation and curettage, cryosurgical destruction, photodynamic therapy, radiation, topical therapies, and systemic medications. Radiotherapy can be considered as a primary treatment option for BCC if surgery is contraindicated or declined by the patient, but it also is useful as an adjuvant therapy when there is perineural invasion of the tumor or positive margins. Hedgehog pathway inhibitors such as vismodegib currently are indicated for patients who are not candidates for surgery or radiation as well as for those with metastatic or locally advanced, recurrent BCC. There is no single treatment method ideal for every lesion or patient. Specific populations such as the elderly, the immunosuppressed, or those with poor baseline functional status may warrant a nonsurgical approach. The clinician must take into consideration all factors while at the same time thinking about how to best accomplish the goals of recurrencefree tumor removal, correction of any underlying functional impairment from the tumor, and maintenance of cosmesis.¹

The Diagnosis: Nodular Basal Cell Carcinoma

Histopathology of the lesion showed a large basaloid lobule with focal epidermal attachment, peripheral nuclear palisading with cleft formation between the tumor and surrounding stroma, fibromyxoid stroma and mild pleomorphism, and variable mitotic activity and apoptosis (Figure). Based on the clinical presentation and histopathology, the patient was diagnosed with nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC). He underwent a wide local excision of the affected area that was repaired with a splitthickness skin graft.

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer worldwide and typically occurs due to years of UV radiation damage on sun-exposed skin, which accounts for a higher frequency of BCC occurring in patients residing in geographic locations with greater UV exposure (eg, higher and lower latitudes). In addition to cumulative UV dose, the duration of the exposure as well as its intensity also play a role in the development of BCC, particularly in early childhood and adolescence. Nevertheless, UV exposure is not the only risk factor, as 20% of BCCs arise in skin that is not exposed to the sun. Other risk factors include exposure to ionizing radiation and arsenic, immunosuppression, and genetic predisposition.¹ Although these malignancies typically do not metastasize, growth can lead to local tissue destruction and major disfigurement if not treated in a timely fashion.²

In our patient, the differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) given the clinical appearance of the cribriform base and violaceous undermined rim of the ulcer. Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare neutrophilic disorder that often results in ulcers that have been associated with various systemic autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. There are 4 main subtypes of PG: the classic ulcerative type (our patient); the pustular type, which most often is seen in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; the bullous type, which can be seen in patients with an associated lymphoproliferative disorder; and the vegetative type. It frequently is thought of as both a clinical and histologic diagnosis of exclusion due to the nonspecific histopathologic features; most lesions demonstrate an infiltrate of neutrophils in the dermis. A biopsy was crucial in our patient, considering that diagnosis and treatment would have been further delayed had the patient been empirically treated with oral and topical steroids for presumed PG, which is precisely why PG is a diagnosis of exclusion. It is imperative for clinicians to rule out other pathologies, such as infection or malignancy, as demonstrated in our patient. The progressive onset and slow evolution of the lesion over years along with a lack of pain were more suggestive of BCC rather than PG. However, there is a report in the literature of PG mimicking BCC with both clinical and dermoscopic findings.³

Venous or stasis ulcers are painless, and although they rarely occur on the calf, they typically are seen lower on the leg such as on the medial ankles. Our patient endorsed occasional swelling of the affected leg and presented with edema, but overlying stasis change and other signs of venous insufficiency were absent.

Buruli ulcer is a painless chronic debilitating cutaneous disease resulting in indolent necrotizing skin as well as subcutaneous and bone lesions. It is caused by the environmental organism Mycobacterium ulcerans and typically is reported in Africa, Central/South America, the Western Pacific Region, and Australia.⁴ Histopathology usually demonstrates necrosis of subcutaneous tissue and dermal collagen accompanied by inflammation and acidfast bacilli highlighted by Ziehl-Neelsen stain.⁵ Smears of the lesions as well as culture and polymerase chain reaction for acid-fast bacilli also can be performed. Our patient reported no recent travel to any endemic areas and had no other risk factors or exposures to the pathogen responsible for this condition.

Traumatic ulcer also was included in the differential diagnosis, but the patient denied preceding trauma to the area, and the contralateral foot prosthesis did not rub on or impact the affected leg.

Basal cell carcinoma typically is treated surgically, but choice of treatment can depend on the subtype, size, tumor site, and/or patient preference.¹ Other treatment modalities include electrodesiccation and curettage, cryosurgical destruction, photodynamic therapy, radiation, topical therapies, and systemic medications. Radiotherapy can be considered as a primary treatment option for BCC if surgery is contraindicated or declined by the patient, but it also is useful as an adjuvant therapy when there is perineural invasion of the tumor or positive margins. Hedgehog pathway inhibitors such as vismodegib currently are indicated for patients who are not candidates for surgery or radiation as well as for those with metastatic or locally advanced, recurrent BCC. There is no single treatment method ideal for every lesion or patient. Specific populations such as the elderly, the immunosuppressed, or those with poor baseline functional status may warrant a nonsurgical approach. The clinician must take into consideration all factors while at the same time thinking about how to best accomplish the goals of recurrencefree tumor removal, correction of any underlying functional impairment from the tumor, and maintenance of cosmesis.¹

The Diagnosis: Nodular Basal Cell Carcinoma

Histopathology of the lesion showed a large basaloid lobule with focal epidermal attachment, peripheral nuclear palisading with cleft formation between the tumor and surrounding stroma, fibromyxoid stroma and mild pleomorphism, and variable mitotic activity and apoptosis (Figure). Based on the clinical presentation and histopathology, the patient was diagnosed with nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC). He underwent a wide local excision of the affected area that was repaired with a splitthickness skin graft.

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer worldwide and typically occurs due to years of UV radiation damage on sun-exposed skin, which accounts for a higher frequency of BCC occurring in patients residing in geographic locations with greater UV exposure (eg, higher and lower latitudes). In addition to cumulative UV dose, the duration of the exposure as well as its intensity also play a role in the development of BCC, particularly in early childhood and adolescence. Nevertheless, UV exposure is not the only risk factor, as 20% of BCCs arise in skin that is not exposed to the sun. Other risk factors include exposure to ionizing radiation and arsenic, immunosuppression, and genetic predisposition.¹ Although these malignancies typically do not metastasize, growth can lead to local tissue destruction and major disfigurement if not treated in a timely fashion.²

In our patient, the differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) given the clinical appearance of the cribriform base and violaceous undermined rim of the ulcer. Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare neutrophilic disorder that often results in ulcers that have been associated with various systemic autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. There are 4 main subtypes of PG: the classic ulcerative type (our patient); the pustular type, which most often is seen in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; the bullous type, which can be seen in patients with an associated lymphoproliferative disorder; and the vegetative type. It frequently is thought of as both a clinical and histologic diagnosis of exclusion due to the nonspecific histopathologic features; most lesions demonstrate an infiltrate of neutrophils in the dermis. A biopsy was crucial in our patient, considering that diagnosis and treatment would have been further delayed had the patient been empirically treated with oral and topical steroids for presumed PG, which is precisely why PG is a diagnosis of exclusion. It is imperative for clinicians to rule out other pathologies, such as infection or malignancy, as demonstrated in our patient. The progressive onset and slow evolution of the lesion over years along with a lack of pain were more suggestive of BCC rather than PG. However, there is a report in the literature of PG mimicking BCC with both clinical and dermoscopic findings.³

Venous or stasis ulcers are painless, and although they rarely occur on the calf, they typically are seen lower on the leg such as on the medial ankles. Our patient endorsed occasional swelling of the affected leg and presented with edema, but overlying stasis change and other signs of venous insufficiency were absent.

Buruli ulcer is a painless chronic debilitating cutaneous disease resulting in indolent necrotizing skin as well as subcutaneous and bone lesions. It is caused by the environmental organism Mycobacterium ulcerans and typically is reported in Africa, Central/South America, the Western Pacific Region, and Australia.⁴ Histopathology usually demonstrates necrosis of subcutaneous tissue and dermal collagen accompanied by inflammation and acidfast bacilli highlighted by Ziehl-Neelsen stain.⁵ Smears of the lesions as well as culture and polymerase chain reaction for acid-fast bacilli also can be performed. Our patient reported no recent travel to any endemic areas and had no other risk factors or exposures to the pathogen responsible for this condition.

Traumatic ulcer also was included in the differential diagnosis, but the patient denied preceding trauma to the area, and the contralateral foot prosthesis did not rub on or impact the affected leg.

Basal cell carcinoma typically is treated surgically, but choice of treatment can depend on the subtype, size, tumor site, and/or patient preference.¹ Other treatment modalities include electrodesiccation and curettage, cryosurgical destruction, photodynamic therapy, radiation, topical therapies, and systemic medications. Radiotherapy can be considered as a primary treatment option for BCC if surgery is contraindicated or declined by the patient, but it also is useful as an adjuvant therapy when there is perineural invasion of the tumor or positive margins. Hedgehog pathway inhibitors such as vismodegib currently are indicated for patients who are not candidates for surgery or radiation as well as for those with metastatic or locally advanced, recurrent BCC. There is no single treatment method ideal for every lesion or patient. Specific populations such as the elderly, the immunosuppressed, or those with poor baseline functional status may warrant a nonsurgical approach. The clinician must take into consideration all factors while at the same time thinking about how to best accomplish the goals of recurrencefree tumor removal, correction of any underlying functional impairment from the tumor, and maintenance of cosmesis.¹

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Signals for keratoacanthoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors were detected in an analysis of adverse events (AEs) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• The risk for dermatologic immune-related side effects may be increased with immunologic-modifying drugs.
• To determine if there are significant signals between keratoacanthomas and cSCCs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, researchers analyzed AEs associated with these agents reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between January 2004 and May 2023.
• Pharmacovigilance signals were identified, and a significant signal was defined as the lower 95% CI of a reporting odds ratio (ROR) greater than one or the lower 95% CI of an information component (IC) greater than 0.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 158,000 reports of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use, 43 were in patients who developed a keratoacanthoma (mean age, 77 years; 39% women) and 83 were in patients who developed cSCC (mean age, 71 years; 41% women). Patients aged 60-79 years were most likely to develop keratoacanthomas and cSCC on these treatments.
• A PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was listed as the suspect drug in all 43 keratoacanthoma reports and in 70 of 83 cSCC reports (the remaining 13 listed them as the concomitant drug).
• Significant signals were reported for both keratoacanthoma (ROR, 9.7; IC, 1.9) and cSCC (ROR, 3.0; IC, 0.9) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use.
• Of the reports where this information was available, all 10 cases of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked keratoacanthoma and 10 of 17 cases (59%) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked cSCC, resolution was noted following discontinuation or dose reduction of the inhibitor.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the large number of patients receiving immunotherapy, FAERS recording only 43 patients developing keratoacanthoma and 83 patients developing cSCC highlights that these conditions are relatively rare adverse events,” the authors wrote but added that more studies are needed to confirm these results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pushkar Aggarwal, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The data obtained from FAERS did not contain information on all AEs from drugs. In addition, a causal association could not be determined.

DISCLOSURES:

The funding source was not reported. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Signals for keratoacanthoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors were detected in an analysis of adverse events (AEs) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• The risk for dermatologic immune-related side effects may be increased with immunologic-modifying drugs.
• To determine if there are significant signals between keratoacanthomas and cSCCs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, researchers analyzed AEs associated with these agents reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between January 2004 and May 2023.
• Pharmacovigilance signals were identified, and a significant signal was defined as the lower 95% CI of a reporting odds ratio (ROR) greater than one or the lower 95% CI of an information component (IC) greater than 0.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 158,000 reports of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use, 43 were in patients who developed a keratoacanthoma (mean age, 77 years; 39% women) and 83 were in patients who developed cSCC (mean age, 71 years; 41% women). Patients aged 60-79 years were most likely to develop keratoacanthomas and cSCC on these treatments.
• A PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was listed as the suspect drug in all 43 keratoacanthoma reports and in 70 of 83 cSCC reports (the remaining 13 listed them as the concomitant drug).
• Significant signals were reported for both keratoacanthoma (ROR, 9.7; IC, 1.9) and cSCC (ROR, 3.0; IC, 0.9) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use.
• Of the reports where this information was available, all 10 cases of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked keratoacanthoma and 10 of 17 cases (59%) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked cSCC, resolution was noted following discontinuation or dose reduction of the inhibitor.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the large number of patients receiving immunotherapy, FAERS recording only 43 patients developing keratoacanthoma and 83 patients developing cSCC highlights that these conditions are relatively rare adverse events,” the authors wrote but added that more studies are needed to confirm these results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pushkar Aggarwal, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The data obtained from FAERS did not contain information on all AEs from drugs. In addition, a causal association could not be determined.

DISCLOSURES:

The funding source was not reported. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Signals for keratoacanthoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors were detected in an analysis of adverse events (AEs) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• The risk for dermatologic immune-related side effects may be increased with immunologic-modifying drugs.
• To determine if there are significant signals between keratoacanthomas and cSCCs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, researchers analyzed AEs associated with these agents reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between January 2004 and May 2023.
• Pharmacovigilance signals were identified, and a significant signal was defined as the lower 95% CI of a reporting odds ratio (ROR) greater than one or the lower 95% CI of an information component (IC) greater than 0.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 158,000 reports of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use, 43 were in patients who developed a keratoacanthoma (mean age, 77 years; 39% women) and 83 were in patients who developed cSCC (mean age, 71 years; 41% women). Patients aged 60-79 years were most likely to develop keratoacanthomas and cSCC on these treatments.
• A PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was listed as the suspect drug in all 43 keratoacanthoma reports and in 70 of 83 cSCC reports (the remaining 13 listed them as the concomitant drug).
• Significant signals were reported for both keratoacanthoma (ROR, 9.7; IC, 1.9) and cSCC (ROR, 3.0; IC, 0.9) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use.
• Of the reports where this information was available, all 10 cases of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked keratoacanthoma and 10 of 17 cases (59%) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked cSCC, resolution was noted following discontinuation or dose reduction of the inhibitor.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the large number of patients receiving immunotherapy, FAERS recording only 43 patients developing keratoacanthoma and 83 patients developing cSCC highlights that these conditions are relatively rare adverse events,” the authors wrote but added that more studies are needed to confirm these results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pushkar Aggarwal, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The data obtained from FAERS did not contain information on all AEs from drugs. In addition, a causal association could not be determined.

DISCLOSURES:

The funding source was not reported. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.